Introduction: Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd

The Right Honourable Sir Roger John Laugharne Thomas, Knight, having been created Baron Thomas of Cwmgiedd, of Cwmgiedd in the County of Powys, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Lord Morris of Aberavon and Lord Judge, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Death of a Member: Lord Kingsdown
	 — 
	Announcement

Baroness D'Souza: My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsdown, on 24 November. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.

Crime: Clare’s Law
	 — 
	Question

Baroness Gale: To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will report on the pilot schemes relating to “Clare’s Law” in Greater Manchester, Gwent, Nottinghamshire and Wiltshire; and when a decision will be taken on the results of the evaluation.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, to mark International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, my right honourable friend Mrs Theresa May this morning announced the rollout of the domestic violence disclosure scheme, also known as Clare’s law, across England and Wales from March 2014. This follows the successful conclusion of the pilot in September, which found that it encouraged effective local multi-agency working around domestic violence and abuse. The Home Secretary also announced her intention to roll out domestic violence protection orders.

Baroness Gale: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much and I am pleased to hear that Clare’s law will be rolled out nationally. Will he join me in congratulating Michael Brown—the father of Clare Wood, who was killed by her partner—who has campaigned relentlessly for Clare’s law? Can the Minister confirm that resources will be put in place so that women will know that they have the right to ask and the right to know under Clare’s law? Does he agree that there should be a national campaign to publicise this? Furthermore, does he agree with the hope that
	the number of women who die at the hands of their partner or former partner—which is estimated at about 100 a year, in addition to the 1.2 million it is estimated will suffer domestic abuse at some time in their lives—will be reduced by this additional aid?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I am aware of the figures that the noble Baroness has produced. They are indeed horrendous. I willingly pay tribute to Michael Brown. I hope that the actions the Home Secretary has taken today are a worthy tribute to the suffering that Clare Wood endured. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness’s commitment to this issue and share her interest in ensuring that these projects are a success. The Government have ring-fenced £40 million of funding over the lifetime of this Parliament to help front-line organisations tackle violence against women and girls. We see this resource being available to fund both these initiatives and I hope that we all join in wishing them great success.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we are taking part in a study, which this morning had a meeting in the House of Commons and heard from many witnesses? In particular, I mention Professor Liz Kelly, who has written a paper on this very important subject. It brought out that one of the worst situations is coercive control, which is the type of thing we have had with the slavery issue recently. Apparently the most dangerous point with coercive control is when the person who has been intimidated or brainwashed—all sorts of possible things have been used—says that she is going to go. That is apparently when the police record quite a number of deaths. Will my noble friend ensure that Professor Liz Kelly’s paper is taken into consideration in any further studies?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I happily give my noble friend that assurance. Indeed, I look forward to hearing more from her on this issue. Violence against women is often a matter of revenge. I believe in a society where people should be free to enter into emotional commitments to others and equally free to leave them. Violence should never be used to enforce a relationship.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us what plans have been put in place for training to help the police, prosecutors, the judiciary and others so that they better understand the nature of domestic violence and how Clare’s law can best be implemented?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The noble and learned Baroness will probably know that there are multi-agency risk assessment conferences at which these matters are discussed at grassroots implementation level. We are well aware that a broad spread of people has an interest in making sure that these policies are effectively delivered on the ground. The Government are ensuring that all those involved are properly informed of the most effective way of dealing with this. So much of this has lain undercover—almost under the carpet. What we in this Government—and indeed, I think, in this House—are seeking to do is bring it out into the open.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate the particular harm caused by domestic violence to children living in families? My understanding is that children’s centres are not included in those agencies which are informed about domestic violence in the family. In order that they can target those families for support, will he check to see that they are kept informed in this area?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I shall certainly attempt to do so. We work with the Department for Education on this issue. The policy is designed to look at the family as a holistic unit and find out ways in which by intervening in early stages of violence we can stop it developing into a situation where children, too, can be affected.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Minister acknowledged that there has been a call for a much wider look at the issue, particularly at how the police and state agencies respond, coming both from Refuge and Women’s Aid—organisations which know a lot about the subject. I have heard today comments in response to the announcement that welcome the putting of responsibility on to the abused person. That is a very dangerous attitude. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is unrealistic to create the expectation that somebody should check on a partner’s background. Control and abuse may grow very gradually.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: On the other hand, my noble friend will recognise that much of Clare’s law is about authorities being open with a perpetrator’s possible history of abuse. Alongside this, HMIC also has a role in setting up a special group to check on capacity at police level to make sure that the police, who are key to a lot of this, operate effectively in this area.

Business Rates
	 — 
	Question

Lord Naseby: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take in response to calls from the Confederation of British Industry, the British Chambers of Commerce and the British Retail Consortium for a reduction in and reform of business rates, particularly in relation to high street retailers.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I give notice that a member of my family works in the retail trade.

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: My Lords, the Government keep all taxes, including business rates, under review and in doing so take account of all views expressed by representative bodies and the retail industry. While I am not privy to any measures that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be considering ahead of the Autumn Statement, noble Lords might wish to be reminded that this Government have taken significant steps to support business, including, for example, doubling small business rate relief.

Lord Naseby: My noble friend is right to remind the House of what the Government have done so far. Nevertheless, is she not aware that the broader high street, often owned by individuals or families, has faced the most difficult four years certainly in this century and probably since the last war? Is she further aware that the one element that does not seem to change is the business rates, which each year go up and up and are now well above rentals, which is the first time in history that that has happened? Will she therefore look at some short-term action, perhaps freezing the business rate for the year 2014-15, otherwise I fear that shops, particularly in the north and the Midlands, will shut up shop? If action is taken, that will probably mean more investment, more recruitment into the retail trade and will probably be cost-neutral.

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this important matter. Of course I recognise the difficulties faced by retailers around the country. I regret that I am not able to announce any new tax cuts today—my right honourable friend the Chancellor might have something to say if I did. He has a proven record in supporting business. It is worth reminding noble Lords that by 2015 corporation tax will have fallen eight percentage points to 20%. I also know that he is listening hard and considering all options before deciding what steps to take next towards reducing the deficit and stimulating growth.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, we know that small businesses are the driving force behind future jobs and growth. As the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said, we know that many small business owners face a cost of living crisis as high streets struggle, and that many are under the pressures of rising business rates and energy bills. There are some 40,000 empty shops in the UK and more than one in 10 small businesses say they spend the same or more on business rates as on rents. While it is right that the UK has a competitive corporation tax rate, does the Minister not accept that the priority now is to direct more help to small and medium-sized businesses, as Ed Miliband proposed, by cutting the 2015 business rate on 1.5 million properties below the value of £50,000 and freezing it for 2016? This would be paid for by not cutting further in 2015 corporation tax for 80,000 larger companies and multinationals.

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: I think the Institute of Directors has already disagreed with that approach. We consider that it would be robbing Peter to pay Paul because all businesses benefit from a reduction in corporation tax. It is also worth reminding the noble Lord that this Government have given local authorities powers to grant their own business rate discounts. The local government sector now retains 50% of the business rates that are collected. If local authorities decide to reduce business rates further in their area, since April of this year the Government have been funding 50% of those costs.

Baroness Hanham: Does the Minister agree that while business rates may be one factor in the decline of the high streets, there are a number of others? Does she further agree that this Government
	have already frozen the revaluation of rates, which was a help? Finally, does she agree that other factors in the high street include rents, the mix of shops, the support of local people and, perhaps most importantly, online shopping, which it is now estimated will account for 30% of all business transacted over the Christmas period?

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: This Government have done a lot to support local communities in adapting their high streets to the changing behaviour of consumers. My noble friend is right to highlight the increase in online trade. The other point worth making about things we are doing differently is that we changed some of the previous Government’s planning guidance which pushed up parking charges and had quite a negative effect on town centres. We are looking to do more in this area and will consult on that soon.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that rates in Scotland are devolved to the Scottish Parliament and will be included in a document produced tomorrow, which the Scottish Government mistakenly call a White Paper? Will she take the opportunity—along with all Ministers, including, particularly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness—to remind the Scottish Government that the title “White Paper” should only be used for proposals which the Government are able to bring in, and that the proposals included in this document can only be brought in with the agreement of the whole of the United Kingdom?

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: I can only imagine that the noble Lord has chosen to ask a question about process because the substance of my replies have disappointed him. This Government have done an awful lot to support businesses and, for me, today is not the moment to start talking about the way in which different Parliaments operate.

Lord Wrigglesworth: My Lords, I declare an interest in UK Land Estates. Is my noble friend aware that the burden of rates on businesses is three times that of corporation tax? Will she consider approaching the Chancellor to seek to alleviate the burden on some businesses through a one-year rebate for empty premises that would give an incentive to firms to move in, and thereby fill some of the empty shops on our high streets?

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: We have already introduced some changes on empty premises to support local authorities. New builds which remain empty have a reduction in business rate for up to 18 months; and that is having a positive effect.

Economy: Women’s Incomes
	 — 
	Question

Baroness Thornton: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have carried out an economic impact assessment of the effects on women’s incomes and standard of living of their economic policy since May 2010.

Lord Newby: My Lords, departments take full account of the impact of their policies on women. In spending round 2013, the Government published an analysis of how their decisions impacted on different groups, including by gender. This was a first for any UK Government. The economy is growing, the deficit is falling and jobs are being created. The only sustainable way to raise living standards for both men and women is to stick to our current economic plans.

Baroness Thornton: I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. I have to say that it does not coincide with the information that I have, which was produced by the House of Commons Library. Its analysis tells us that, of the £14.4 billion George Osborne has raised through additional net direct tax and benefit changes, about £11.4 billion—79%—is coming from women. This includes low-paid new mums, who have lost nearly £3,000 in support during their pregnancy and their baby’s first year; couples with children, who have lost 9.7% of their disposable income; and single mothers, who have lost the most—15.6%? Does the noble Lord think that that is fair, and how does it reflect, “We are all in this together”?

Lord Newby: My Lords, I think that those figures are in some respects significantly misleading. For example, 98% of all child benefit goes to women, but it is the whole household that benefits. The single biggest improvement in the position of women under this Government has come from the fact that there are 450,000 women now in work who were not in work in 2010. This is as a result of the Government’s economic policies, which have kept interest rates down so that we have not seen the high unemployment peak that we had in the previous recession.

Baroness Tyler of Enfield: My Lords, with women three times more likely than men to be in part-time work, does the Minister agree that a gender divide still exists in the labour market that forces many women to compromise their careers in order to care for children, and that this inequality can best be addressed by further increasing the provision of affordable childcare?

Lord Newby: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The Government are increasing the amount of free childcare that they are providing, most noticeably from the age of two, for 15 weeks a year, in addition to the existing provision for three and four year-olds. I agree with my noble friend’s comments about pay. It is noticeable, however, that, on most measures, the pay gap between men and women has fallen by between 0.5% and 1% in the past year.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, the Government are using the question of women’s employment rather incorrectly. They must stop hiding behind that. Rather, I should like an explanation of why the figures cited by my noble friend are misleading and why the House of Commons Library has got them wrong.

Lord Newby: My Lords, as I said, one of the big elements in that overall figure is child benefit, which goes to women. It is paid to women in 98% of cases,
	but child benefit affects the whole family. Therefore, to include child benefit as a benefit for women, as it were, is completely misleading; it is a benefit for the whole household.

Baroness Uddin: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that members of the minority community who are also British citizens are tending to do worse in the pay structure? Is he also aware that about 75% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi women are not a factor at all in the economic circumstances of Britain? How does that square with the so well supported and so beloved economic strategy of this Government?

Lord Newby: My Lords, we would like to see—as no doubt the noble Baroness would—a higher proportion of women from those communities being economically active. We are seeing that a much higher proportion of young women in those communities are economically active than their parents were. However, one of the positive things about the rise in the number of women in employment, which I mentioned earlier, is that there is now a higher proportion of women in the labour market than ever before. That is very much to the benefit of women overall.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, does the Minister realise that proposals regarding economic policy are to be included in the paper to be produced by the Scottish Government tomorrow? Since the Minister’s noble friend was unable to answer my supplementary question, could he take some advice from the Advocate-General and answer it? A Government can call something a White Paper only if they have the power to implement what is included—and, if the Scottish people were, unfortunately, to vote yes, the Scottish Government’s proposals could be implemented only with the full agreement of the rest of the United Kingdom.

Lord Newby: My Lords, perhaps I could refer the noble Lord to the speech made by my noble and learned friend at Aberdeen University last Friday, which very adequately answers his question.

Violence against Women and Girls
	 — 
	Question

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to prevent rape and violence against women and girls.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, as we have already said, this Government are committed to preventing these appalling crimes. Earlier this year we published, and we continue to deliver, a cross-government strategy called Ending Violence Against Women and Girls, and a supporting action plan that goes with it. This includes our successful national campaigns particularly targeted at teenagers to prevent rapes and abuse, which we will be rebuilding with a relaunch early next month.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I thank the Minister for that reply. I refer specifically to the rape crisis centres that I know the Government have given some support and funding to, which of course is appreciated. However, the money which has been given is short-term money. What plans do the Government have, and what is in their strategy, to guarantee that they will give the funding to ensure that these rape crisis centres can continue—not least because local commissioning has changed, which has put them in jeopardy? The Government really have to take some responsibility for ensuring that these rape crisis centres can stay open. Alongside that, are they giving any support for the training of the specialists who provide support services within the rape crisis centres?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Again I pay tribute to the noble Baroness’s interests and to the way in which she is pursuing these matters. It is true to say that the Government want to improve victims’ experience of the criminal justice system wherever they interface with it, and to assure victims of these terrible crimes that they will get the support that they need. That is why the Government are currently providing £4 million for 77 rape crisis centres across England and Wales. We hope that we are helping to build the support which the noble Baroness seeks for the victims of sexual assault and rape.

Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, as millions of people seem very reluctant to believe that millions of women are being brutalised in this country, have the Government considered adopting the policy of the Spanish Government, who have distributed notices throughout Spain which simply state, “If you’ve hit a woman, you’re not a man”?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I concur with the message that my noble friend suggests, although I have to say that we have not considered that particular campaign. None the less, it will be interesting to see how it works in Spain.

Baroness Kingsmill: My Lords, would the Minister agree that perhaps what we really ought to focus on is prevention? By prevention, I mean that we should educate young men and boys not to use violence against women and to learn how to honour and respect women. Could not our national curriculum possibly be improved by having such lessons?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: A lot can be done in schools and, of course, a lot can be done outside schools by those people fortunate to live in parental custody, and by parents themselves treating each other with mutual respect. The Home Office has had—and I alluded to it earlier—a very successful national teenage rape prevention campaign, which was extended into a teenage relationship abuse campaign, because it was recognised that rape was only one aspect of the abuse that young females might suffer from young men. The figures and responses show that these campaigns have struck home and have had a real impact on young people’s relationships. That is why we are intending to relaunch the campaign on, I think, 5 December. We feel that that is the right way in which to go about it.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: Would the Minister not acknowledge that, while we have campaigns, they are not a replacement for education? This is a cultural problem. We hear on the radio that women cyclists are being harassed by men, not only for being cyclists but for being women. We know that young men, brought up in difficult households, are more likely to see domestic abuse, and that those who see domestic abuse are, according to the research programme from Arnon Bentovim, more likely to be engaged in rape and the harm of women. Surely it goes back to the noble Baroness’s point that, unless we tackle this in the school curriculum at the educational level, no amount of campaigns will make any difference.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Again, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness’s commitment to making sure that professionals are properly oriented towards dealing with this. She rightly draws attention to an answer which I think that I gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Kingsmill, earlier, and I hope that she agrees that I recognise the important role of schools.

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville: Would the Minister agree that creating a safe atmosphere whereby women are encouraged to report to the police violence and rape within the home in the knowledge that they will be taken seriously and treated sympathetically is key to tackling the problem and reducing the incidence?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Yes, indeed. One feature of the current scene post-Savile is that women are much more confident now about going to the police and knowing that these things will be taken seriously. So I could not agree more with my noble friend.

The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, following a debate that I was able to secure on a related issue back in March, more than 60 bishops around the country are today supporting the campaign to end gender-based violence, and are visiting on this day a large number of projects up and down the country to support the cause. I apologise that, in the rush to get here, I have no white ribbon. Could the Minister inform the House what additional action the Government are taking to implement the agreed conclusion from this year’s UN Commission on the Status of Women, which focused on the ending of violence against women?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I congratulate my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary on his role in ensuring that 135 countries have signed up to the agreement on the use of rape as a weapon of war. This is a significant development, and shows that these arguments are not just confined to this country. Discussions that we are having here have raised awareness throughout the world.

Health and Social Care (Amendment) (Food Standards) Bill [HL]
	 — 
	Order of Commitment Discharged

Moved by Baroness Cumberlege
	That the order of commitment be discharged.

Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been tabled to the Bill, and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
	Motion agreed.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
	 — 
	Committee (4th Day)

Relevant documents: 12th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee, 4th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
	Clause 44: Remedial action by local authority
	Amendment 22QG had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Clause 44 agreed.
	Clause 45: Offence of failing to comply with notice
	Amendment 22QH not moved.
	Clause 45 agreed.
	Clause 46 agreed.
	Clause 47: Forfeiture of item used in commission of offence
	Amendment 22QJ not moved.
	Amendments 22QK to 22QS had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Clause 47 agreed.
	Clause 48 agreed.
	Clause 49: Fixed penalty notices
	Amendment 22QT
	 Moved by Baroness Hamwee
	22QT: Clause 49, page 28, line 30, leave out “14” insert “28”

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, this will make me popular, as noble Lords are now able to leave the Chamber.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I ask all noble Lords to leave the Chamber quietly out of respect for my noble friend Lady Hamwee.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I hope that my amendments live up to that. I speak also to Amendments 22QU and 22QV, and Amendments 56ZBA and 56ZBB. These amendments are all about fixed-penalty notices for failure to comply, in the case of the first pair of amendments with a community protection order, and in the second pair of amendments with a public spaces protection order. The Bill allows 14 days to pay the fixed penalty, which may be reduced in amount it if is paid within a shorter period; I imagine that it is anticipated that that would be seven days. It seems to me that 14 days is a very short period. I am not in this amendment seeking to argue the merits or
	otherwise of either of the orders but we do not want them to come into disrepute through there being difficulties in their application. Some people go away on holidays, not realising that a notice may have become payable, because they might not actually have been handed it. There are a number of reasons why 14 days for payment is in many areas regarded as on the short side.
	My amendments would provide in both cases a period of 28 days with a discount if payment is made, say, within 14 days—or, at any rate, an earlier period—which is comparable with penalties under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Amendment 22QV, also to Clause 49, would replace a certificate being one that,
	“purports to be signed by or on behalf of the chief finance officer of the local authority”,
	with one that is simply “signed on behalf of”. I will probably be told that this is language used in many other Acts of Parliament, but it seemed to me a curious provision. More importantly, however, there would be no scope for challenge to it if the local authority got its procedures wrong. I have therefore tabled the amendment not as a frivolous matter but as a serious one. I beg to move.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: I thank my noble friend for explaining the purpose of these amendments. I suppose I could say that I had a vested interest in asking other noble Lords to leave quietly, as I had to respond to this amendment.
	This amendment relates to the amount of time that an individual issued with a fixed penalty notice should be given to pay. Where breach of a community protection notice or of a condition of a public spaces protection order has occurred, the offender could be issued with a fixed penalty notice. Payment of this penalty notice discharges the perpetrator from any other proceedings for that breach and so they are, quite rightly, given a period of grace in which to pay the amount specified. Different fixed penalty notice schemes have different periods during which recipients are expected to pay the penalty; for example, littering is set at 14 days whereas others have a longer time. In this case we believe that 14 days is sufficient time for a perpetrator to pay that amount and that it provides the right balance between giving the offender enough time to pay the fine and ensuring that the process for collecting such money is both timely and efficient.
	In terms of Amendment 22QV, I have listened to the case made by my noble friend, who highlighted certain instances of concern. However, the language used in the Bill is, of course, commonly used elsewhere on the statute book. For example, this terminology is also used in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to fixed penalty notices under that Act. In effect it avoids the chief finance officer having to come to court to give evidence personally that he or she had signed the certificate. Despite that provision, it remains a matter for the court to decide what weight to place upon the document as evidence, although in practice it is highly unlikely that the issue of whether the document is genuine will ever be an issue. I have heard the case that my noble friend has made, but the Government feel that on balance the 14 days and, as has been stated, the signature of the chief finance officer as
	stands in what the Government have tabled is the right way forward. For those reasons, I hope that my noble friend is minded to withdraw her amendments.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, of course I will withdraw them, given that this is Committee stage. The last of my amendments would not impose any requirement to give evidence any more than would the words in the Bill, but I can see that I will not get anywhere with that. On the 14 days, is it just a question of the Government saying, “We think this is right”, or is it something more detailed than that? We have different views. I have said that I am concerned that the timing may too easily be missed, and that it could bring the penalties regime into disrepute. If the noble Lord has any more to say in support, I would be glad to hear it. Will he tell the Committee whether the shorter period envisaged is indeed seven days, which I rather guessed at? I do not know whether his notes give him that information.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: It would be appropriate if I wrote to the noble Baroness; I will come back to her specifically on whether it is seven or 10 days. However, on the 14 days, that is the Government’s position as it stands.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I beg to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 22QT withdrawn.
	Amendments 22QU and 22QV not moved.
	Clause 49 agreed.
	Clause 50: Authorised persons
	Amendment 22QW
	 Moved by Baroness Hamwee
	22QW: Clause 50, page 29, line 21, leave out paragraph (c)

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I will speak also to Amendments 22QYB, 22QYC and 22QYD.
	Clause 50 states who may issue a community protection notice or a fixed penalty notice. Amendment 22QW queries whether paragraph (c) of Clause 50(1) is necessary. It provides that a community protection notice or fixed penalty notice may be issued by,
	“a person designated by the relevant local authority”.
	Paragraph (b) refers to the notices being issued by, “the relevant local authority”. The authority will have to designate a signatory because whatever it does must be done by someone acting in its name. Therefore, I am puzzled as to what paragraph (c) adds.
	I have added my name to Amendment 22QY standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Greaves—he got there first—because my real objection concerns subsection (4) of Clause 50, which provides that only someone in a post,
	“specified in an order made by the Secretary of State”,
	can be designated. Surely, designation must be a matter for the local authority. Does the Secretary of State have to intervene at this level?
	Amendments 22QYB and 22QYC probe whether all police community support officers have the relevant technical knowledge to deal with community protection notices. On previous Committee days we discussed
	some of the difficulties that may arise in using the existing statutory powers that environmental health officers have, for example, as opposed to using the new mechanisms provided in the Bill. A lot of technical knowledge needs to be applied in deciding whether an infringement has occurred, especially in respect of noise.
	My last amendment in this group concerns serving a notice. A fixed penalty notice can be handed over to the individual or be delivered to that person’s address either by hand or by post. If it is to be delivered by post, I am concerned to know when it is deemed to have been issued. If it is issued when the notice is put in the post, it will reduce, by at least a day and possibly more, the time that the recipient of the notice has to pay. I have already said that I am concerned about how short that time is. I beg to move Amendment 22QW.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, the point I am about to make has been made in connection with a great deal of other legislation and concerns the abilities of those with learning difficulties and disabilities to understand the content and implications of notices such as those we are discussing. It is important to ensure that the legislation includes reference to the provision of appropriate adults or advocates or whatever sources are used to make certain that the full implications are explained to those who may have such difficulties to avoid them getting into yet further trouble, completely inappropriately.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I have three amendments in this group, which have to some extent been covered already by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. Clause 50 states that authorised persons who may issue a community protection notice or a fixed penalty notice are “a constable” or “the relevant local authority”—a lower-tier district or unitary authority in this case—or,
	“a person designated by the relevant local authority”.
	These amendments largely probe the intentions of the Government as to which persons might be designated by the relevant authority.
	Subsection (4) states:
	“Only a person of a description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State … may be designated”.
	Along with my noble friend, I wonder why the Secretary of State requires this power in this instance. By and large, all the anti-social behaviour parts of the Bill are remarkably free of powers under which the Secretary of State can issue orders and regulations. Those of us who ploughed through Bills such as the Localism Bill and the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, now Acts of Parliament, felt that they were plagued with powers under which the Secretary of State could tell local authorities in great detail what to do through statutory instruments. This Bill is mercifully free of such provisions, except here and there. Yet here, for some reason, one such provision crops up, and it is not clear why it should be required in this instance.
	I therefore tabled Amendment 22QY only to probe the Government’s intention regarding what class of people ought to be involved. However, we want to take
	out the ability of the Government to instruct local authorities. Specifically, Amendment 22QX probes the question of whether a parish council—or perhaps a larger parish or town council—could be designated by the relevant local authority, the district council, to carry out some of these functions. I should make it clear that if the amendment were agreed it would be entirely permissive and would require the agreement of both the district and the town or parish council. However, town councils and some parish councils already do a huge amount of work on tackling local issues such as litter. It seems sensible, at least in a restricted way when dealing with appropriate issues, for those councils to have powers to serve community protection notices.
	My question is: as the Bill stands, would parish councils, or perhaps a specified person on or employed by a parish council, be eligible for designation? Is it the Government’s intention that if they are going to designate such people, parish councils would be available to be designated if they wished to do this work? Clearly, there would be no question of compulsion.

The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, as this is the first occasion on which I have spoken at this stage of the Bill, I ought to reiterate my declaration of interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and president of the National Association of Local Councils, the parent body of parish and town councils.
	I will direct my attention to Amendment 22QX in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I am extremely grateful to him for raising this point because it is perfectly true that many parish and town councils across England and Wales have aspirations to take on addition roles. He will be aware from a note that I sent him and copied to the Minister that I was a bit doubtful as to whether a generic provision for parish councils to be designated in this way was necessarily wise or appropriate, because it will be clear to Members of this Committee that parish councils, by their very nature, come in all shapes and sizes and with all manner of abilities and resources available to them—from next to nothing to those that would put some principal authorities in the shade. Therefore, it is very important to understand the criteria whereby such a designation could be made. Otherwise, were a parish or town council to be so designated in a situation where ultimately it could not manage this particular obligation, it would potentially be a hostage to the fortunes of circumstance.
	I should add that I inquired of a number of other bodies, such as the Ramblers and the Open Spaces Society, what they felt about the business of parish and town councils having this sort of power. I did not refer specifically to this type of power but to more general powers, but they were doubtful that it would be appropriate. They may have had their own reasons for being doubtful, and of course noble Lords will have their own take on this; none the less, it should be clear—and I hope that the Minister will clarify—that what is intended here is that designation will occur when there is clearly the desire and the capacity—in other words, a two-way street of designation, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, outlined. I hope that this is essentially understood on all sides of the Committee that that is a necessary ingredient.

Lord Greaves: Does the noble Earl agree that the concerns about the Bill from the Open Spaces Society, the Ramblers and such organisations really refer to the next chapter of the Bill on public spaces protection orders rather than CPNs? He may be interested to know that only this morning I discussed this matter in some detail with the National Association of Local Councils. On the basis that it will be a two-way voluntary agreement, the association can see a great deal of justification for parish and town councils taking part in this.

The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, the noble Lord is well ahead of the curve on this. I tried to contact the National Association of Local Councils without success earlier today, so he has stolen a march on me. I am extremely glad about that, because one of the great merits of this House is the collaborative way in which these things are dealt with. I am particularly glad that he has made contact with the association and that he has that very common-sense steer on the matter.
	With regard to the Open Spaces Society, the Ramblers and such organisations, I entirely take his point that the issue is probably more specific to the next chapter of the Bill. However, their concerns underline that there will be doubts about the capacity of parish and town councils to undertake certain things and about whether that is an appropriate level at which to deal with the issue. Whether the Minister feels that it is appropriate to accept this amendment or whether he will suggest that there is another way in which the Government’s thinking caters for it, I will leave to his response.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, these amendments raise a number of interesting points. Amendments 22QW and 22QY relate to the provisions in the Bill which would allow local authorities to designate others with the ability to use the new community protection notice. The aim behind this provision is to ensure that the burden of dealing with certain types of anti-social behaviour does not fall on just one agency.
	However, it is important that we strike a balance between the new flexibility and the fact that this new notice incurs a criminal sanction on breach. While subsection (1)(c) allows for the local authority to designate the power, as a safeguard subsection (4) allows the Secretary of State to say who this may include. As we have made clear over the past few years, we believe that social landlords should have a role in dealing with this type of anti-social behaviour. At present, they are the only group that would be included in the order. With regard to who else is going to be on the Home Secretary’s list, at present social landlords are the only category of person but, over time, other groups or bodies may express an interest and we will consider them on a case-by-case basis.
	The draft guidance makes clear the importance of partnership working, and ultimately the local authority will be able to set the ground rules if it decides to give a social landlord access to the new power. However, as many of those landlords are already dealing with these issues and making judgment calls daily on what is
	reasonable or not, it seems sensible to give them a formal role in their own communities. I hope that I have explained the need for other bodies to have access to the new notice and for the safeguards and reasoning behind those safeguards to have been included. I hope that my noble friend will not press the amendments.
	Amendment 22QX would add parish councils and Welsh community councils to the list of bodies that can be designated by the relevant local authority to issue CPNs. CPNs are a powerful tool and, as such, there needs to be some control over the number of organisations that can issue them in order to maintain consistency. As I said, a breach of a CPN is a criminal offence and one needs experienced practitioners in their use. We believe that local authorities, as defined in Clause 53, are the right bodies to undertake this role. As with public spaces protection orders, we do not believe that parish councils should be able to hear them. However, I have been interested in the debate that has gone on between the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and my noble friend Lord Greaves on this issue. If we are to extend the role to include parish councils, we need evidence to effect such a change, and we would need to be absolutely certain that it was in the best interests of making effective use of these new powers.
	Amendment 22QYA would allow the local authority to restrict the use of community protection notices where it designates the power to another person or body. I am happy to reassure my noble friend that this is already possible as the provisions are drafted, and we shall seek further to clarify that in the guidance. We would expect that, in designating the power to social landlords, local authorities would use a memorandum of understanding to agree boundaries on the use of the notice and local guidelines on matters such as the enforcement of notices and the recording of data on their use.
	I understand the point raised by my noble friend on Amendments 22QYB and 22QYC relating to the level of training that those issuing the notice will receive, including police community support officers. I have made it clear that this is a highly responsible activity and that training is important. I assure my noble friend that the kind of judgment calls being made here, and being made daily by social landlords, PCSOs, council staff and police officers, are a feature of current implementation of anti-social behaviour measures. What is unreasonable is how behaviour affects victims and communities and when it is right to go down the formal intervention route. However, we would expect there to be training on the new powers and the impact assessments that we have published include the cost of training. That covers the police, including all PCSOs, social landlords and local authority staff. It is not for Ministers in Whitehall—this is a theme going through the whole Bill—to mandate what levels of training are required to deal with local issues. As such I cannot guarantee exactly what training officers will receive, but I expect that police forces, social landlords and local authorities will see the benefits of the effective use of this new power and train their staff accordingly. I hope that I have given my noble friend the assurances she needs to withdraw her amendment.
	I was interested in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who asked to be reassured that learning disabilities would be considered in the enforcement of this part of the Bill and indeed other parts, too, We can make that absolutely clear in guidance. It is good practice in any event, but I will look at ways of trying to make it clear in the guidance that we issue.
	I turn now to the service of documents by post. This is governed by Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. Under this, service is deemed to have been effected when the letter is posted but actually effected at the time the letter would have been received in the ordinary course of post unless the contrary is proven. There is allowance for the time of delivery under normal events but, should that notice not be received within a reasonable time to enable the person to effect the action that is required, they are required to put forward evidence of not having received the notice. As my noble friend will know, many notices of this type are sent by tracker post or recorded delivery of some description so that the service of the notice can be noted by the issuing authority.
	I hope that I have given assurances on these matters and that, on that basis, my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.

Lord Swinfen: Did I hear my noble friend correctly? Did he say that people have to produce evidence of not having received documents? I do not see how they could do so.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I am quoting from the information I have received, which is the interpretation of Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. When I received it, it sounded slightly topsy-turvy, but nevertheless this has been in use for some time and I expect that there are precedents for the use of this Act. As I say, my noble friend can be reassured that the majority of notices of this type are served either by a visit or by recorded delivery. I shall seek to elaborate further on this and write to my noble friend.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, on behalf of parish and town councils I thank the Minister for his slightly helpful comments at the end of his remarks. Perhaps, before the Bill is implemented, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and I and the NALC might get together to see whether we can put forward a clear, evidence-based proposal to the Government which they might consider seriously.
	I thank the Minister for his helpful reply to my Amendment 22QYA, which I had forgotten to speak to.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, last week I, too, had a long reply to an amendment to which I had not spoken. Perhaps that is the way to go.
	On the last of my amendments on the power to issue CPOs, I asked whether everyone falling within the description of what will be the new paragraph 1ZB in the schedule to the Police Reform Act would have the power. I think that the Minister is saying that everyone who falls within that description will have
	the power and not only particular individuals who have received training. Am I right in understanding that?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: There may be certain circumstances in which people are specifically trained for this function; there may be others where the work they undertake would include training in this function; and there may be others who operate under the guidance of other individuals who have been trained as to how it should be effectively done. It will depend on the circumstances.
	No authority acting under this provision will wish to make a mistake. They will want to do it properly because it is in their interests that the CPN should be enforceable.

Baroness Hamwee: It shows how naive I am, but I have to say that it simply had not occurred to me that the designation under subsection (1)(c) would be of an organisation which is not a public body in the way that we would normally understand it, such as a local authority. As the Minister says, the notice is very powerful and there are criminal consequences. I would certainly like to think about that a little more but of course, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 22QW withdrawn.
	Amendments 22QX to 22QYC not moved.
	Clause 50 agreed.
	Clause 51 agreed.
	Clause 52: Issuing of notices
	Amendment 22QYD not moved.
	Clause 52 agreed.
	Clauses 53 and 54 agreed.
	House resumed.

Iran
	 — 
	Statement

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made to the Commons.
	“Two weeks ago, I reported to the House on the Iranian nuclear negotiations in Geneva between 8 and 10 November. I explained that our aim was to produce an interim first-step agreement with Iran that could then create the confidence and time to negotiate a comprehensive and final settlement addressing all concerns about its nuclear programme. We have always been clear that because Iran’s programme is so extensive, and because crucial aspects of it have been concealed in the past, any agreement would have to be detailed and give assurance to the whole world that the threat of nuclear proliferation in Iran would be properly
	addressed. I said that we believed that such a deal was on the table and that we would do our utmost to bridge the narrow gaps between the parties and conclude a strong agreement.
	On Wednesday last week, the E3+3 and Iranian negotiators resumed their work in Geneva, and on Saturday morning I and the other E3+3 Foreign Ministers joined the talks. At 4 am yesterday we concluded the negotiations successfully, agreeing a thorough and detailed first-stage agreement with Iran, which is a significant step towards enhancing the security of the Middle East and preventing nuclear proliferation worldwide. In this Statement I will cover the extensive commitments that Iran has made, the sanctions relief that it has been offered in return and the steps we will now take to implement and build on what was agreed.
	First, we have agreed a joint plan of action with Iran, with the end goal of a comprehensive settlement that ensures its nuclear programme will be for exclusively peaceful purposes. The agreement has a duration of six months, renewable by mutual consent, and it sets out actions to be taken by both sides as a first step, as well as the elements to be negotiated in a final comprehensive settlement. I have placed a copy of the agreement in the Library of the House, but I wish now to highlight its most important aspects.
	Iran has made a number of very significant commitments. Over the next six months, Iran will cease enriching uranium above 5%, the level beyond which it becomes much easier to produce weapons-grade uranium. Furthermore, it has undertaken to eradicate its stockpile of the most concerning form of uranium enriched above 5%, by diluting half of it to a level of less than 5% and converting the other half to oxide. Iran will not install further centrifuges in its nuclear facilities or start operating installed centrifuges that have not yet been switched on. It will replace existing centrifuges only with centrifuges of the same type, and produce centrifuges only to replace damaged existing machines on a like-for-like basis. In other words, Iran will not install or bring into operation advanced centrifuges that could enable it to produce a dangerous level of enriched uranium more quickly. Iran will cap its stockpile of up to 5% enriched uranium in the highest risk UF6 form by converting any newly enriched uranium into oxide. It will not set up any new locations for enrichment or establish a reprocessing or reconversion facility.
	Iran has agreed to enhanced monitoring of its nuclear programme going beyond existing IAEA inspections in Iran, including access to centrifuge assembly workshops and to uranium mines and mills. Iran will also provide the IAEA with additional information, including about its plans for nuclear facilities. At the heavy water research reactor at Arak, which offers Iran a potential route to a nuclear weapon through the production of plutonium rather than uranium, Iran will not commission the reactor, or transfer fuel or heavy water to the reactor site, or test additional fuel, or produce more fuel for the reactor, or install any remaining components.
	This agreement means that the elements of Iran’s nuclear programme that are thought to present the greatest risk cannot make progress during the six-month
	period of the interim agreement. In other words, if Iran implements the deal in good faith, as it has undertaken to do, it cannot use these routes to move closer to obtaining a nuclear weapons capability. Moreover, some of the most dangerous elements of Iran’s programme are not only frozen but actually rolled back; for instance, the agreement involves the eradication of around 200 kilograms of 20% enriched uranium in UF6 form that Iran has been building up and stockpiling for several years.
	Secondly, in return for these commitments Iran will receive proportionate, limited sanctions relief from the United States and the European Union. For its part, the United States will pause efforts to reduce crude oil sales to Iran’s oil customers, repatriate to Iran some of its oil revenue held abroad, suspend sanctions on the Iranian auto industry, allow the licensing of safety-related repairs and inspections for certain Iranian airlines, and establish a financial channel to facilitate humanitarian and legitimate trade, including for payments to international organisations and for Iranians studying abroad.
	It is proposed that the EU and US together will suspend sanctions on oil-related insurance and transport costs, which will allow the provision of such services to third states for the import of Iranian oil. We will also suspend the prohibition of the import, purchase or transport of Iranian petrochemical products, and suspend sanctions on Iranian imports of gold and precious metals. But core sanctions on Iranian oil and gas will remain in place. It is intended that the EU will also increase by an agreed amount the authorisation thresholds for financial transactions for humanitarian and non-sanctioned trade with Iran. The Council of Ministers of the European Union will be asked to adopt legislation necessary to amend these sanctions, and the new provisions would then apply to all EU member states.
	The total value of the sanctions relief is estimated at $7 billion over the six-month period. There will be no new nuclear-related sanctions adopted by the UN, EU and US during this six-month period. However, the bulk of international sanctions on Iran will remain in place. This includes the EU and US oil embargo which restricts globally oil purchases from Iran, and sanctions on nuclear, military or ballistic missile-related goods and technology. It includes all frozen revenue and foreign exchange reserves held in accounts outside Iran and sanctions on many Iranian banks, such as the Central Bank of Iran, which means that all Iranian assets in the US and EU remain frozen apart from the limited repatriation of revenue under this agreement. Iranian leaders and key individuals and entities will still have their assets in the EU and US frozen and be banned from travelling to the EU and US, and tough financial measures, including a ban from using financial messaging services and transactions with European and US banks, also remain in place. These sanctions will not be lifted until a comprehensive settlement is reached, and we will enforce them robustly. This ensures that Iran still has a powerful incentive to continue to negotiate to reach a comprehensive settlement—which is the third aspect of the agreement on which I wish to update the House today.
	The agreement sets out the elements of a comprehensive solution which we would aim to conclude within one year. These elements include Iran’s rights and obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and IAEA safeguards; the full resolution of concerns related to the heavy water research reactor at Arak; agreed transparency and monitoring including the additional protocol; and co-operation on Iran’s civilian nuclear programme. In return for full confidence on the part of the international community that Iran’s programme is solely peaceful, the plan of action envisages a mutually defined enrichment programme with agreed parameters and limits, but only as part of a comprehensive agreement where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. This comprehensive solution, if and when agreed, would lead to the lifting of all UN Security Council sanctions as well as multilateral and national sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear programme.
	Reaching this interim agreement was a difficult and painstaking process, and there is a huge amount of work to be done to implement it. Implementation will begin following technical discussions with Iran and the IAEA and EU preparations to suspend the relevant sanctions, which we hope will all be concluded by the end of January 2014. A joint commission of the E3+3 and Iran will be established to monitor the implementation of these first-step measures, and it will work with the IAEA to resolve outstanding issues of concern.
	However, the fact that we have achieved for the first time in nearly a decade an agreement that halts and rolls back Iran’s nuclear programme should give us heart that this work can be done and that a comprehensive agreement can be attained. On an issue of such complexity, and given the fact that to make any diplomatic agreement worth while to both sides has to involve compromises, such an agreement is bound to have its critics and opponents. But we are right to test to the full Iran’s readiness to act in good faith to work with the rest of the international community and to enter into international agreements. If it does not abide by its commitments, it will bear a heavy responsibility, but if we did not take the opportunity to attempt such an agreement, then we ourselves would have been guilty of a grave error. It is true that if we did not have this agreement, the pressure of sanctions on Iran would not be alleviated at all. But it is also true that there would be no restraint on advances to its programme, no check on its enrichment activity and stockpiles, no block on its addition of centrifuges, no barrier to prevent it bringing into operation its heavy water research reactor at Arak and no limitation on the many actions which could take it closer to a nuclear weapons capability.
	The bringing together of this agreement with all five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council united behind it in itself sends a powerful signal. While it is only a beginning, there is no doubt that this is an important, necessary and completely justified step which, through its restrictions on Iran’s nuclear programme, gives us the time to negotiate a comprehensive settlement. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, to my Foreign Ministerial colleagues and to our Foreign Office staff, who have played an indispensable role. We will apply the same rigour and determination we have shown in these
	negotiations to the implementation of the agreement and to the search for a comprehensive settlement. At the same time we will continue to be open to improvements in our bilateral relationship on a step-by-step and reciprocal basis, and our new chargé d’affaires will visit Iran shortly. This agreement has shown that the combination of pressure expressed through sanctions coupled with a readiness to negotiate is the right policy.
	For a long time that has been the united approach of this country, from the efforts of the right honourable Member for Blackburn to pursue negotiations a decade ago to the cross-party support in this House for the wide-ranging sanctions we have adopted in recent years. We have been steadfast in pursuing this twin-track policy and seeking a peaceful solution. This agreement is true to that approach and the sheer persistence of the United Kingdom and our allies. This will remain our policy over the coming months as we build on and implement the first step on the long journey to making the Middle East and the whole world safer from nuclear proliferation”.
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for repeating the Statement made earlier in another place. I believe that the agreement between Iran and the western powers, increasing the likelihood that Iran will not build a nuclear weapon in the near future, is of genuine significance. The next six months are, then, of the utmost importance.
	We congratulate those who have been closely involved, especially Secretary of State John Kerry, on what appear to have been months of discreet diplomacy even before the events of this last few days, and my noble friend Lady Ashton on her remarkable lead role in negotiations. She is entitled to the warm thanks of this Parliament and this nation. Her Majesty’s Government have plainly played a substantive part—a part which I straightforwardly acknowledge, including the role of the Foreign Secretary. I also join him in congratulating officials in the FCO, of whom I have great memories, and my right honourable friend Jack Straw, whose role in initiating some of these steps was so important.
	It is clear that what we have here are steps along a road. The whole journey is very far from complete, and there is no guarantee that the journey will be completed. None the less, the political momentum to secure this interim deal is extremely important. I echo the Foreign Secretary’s words about how we should approach the next part of the process—that,
	“nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”.
	The agreement has manifest limits. It results from a co-ordinated approach, including the use of sanctions if real progress is not made for any reason. Should we find that progress is not made, we must conclude that those arrangements should continue—co-ordination, sustained negotiation and sanctions would have to be deployed again.
	The agreement places constraints on Iran’s nuclear programme, in return for which we ease financial sanctions. It sets limits on nuclear aspirations and
	makes provision for serious inspections. It does not halt the nuclear programme, and although the inspectors are obviously to be more intrusive, their rights to intrusion are not exhaustive. It does not dismantle Iran’s nuclear capability. It cannot therefore guarantee to bridle all future developments. I know that many will argue that it should not, but I can see the basis of the anxieties in Israel and the Gulf about this. It is important for us to encourage them to give this process a chance, whatever those anxieties might be.
	To give it a chance, it is essential to keep up pressure for a full, comprehensive agreement. John Kerry’s sense of urgency in the last couple of days is well placed: momentum in this is vital. Next, the ground rules for the next steps need to be expressed. The Iranian nuclear ambitions must be capped. The international community must have total, unrestricted confidence in verification. No part of the programme can remain hidden. There can be no “inalienable rights” to enrich. These issues must form the bedrock of the work to come. To achieve these bases, it would be helpful if Her Majesty’s Government could answer some questions that I think may be of genuine significance.
	Although the agreement concedes daily access for the IAEA inspectors at Natanz and Fordo, there is no clarity about access to the heavy water research reactor or other facilities at Arak. How often will inspectors be allowed to see Arak? I note the Foreign Secretary’s statement of reservation, which was quite rightly included in his Statement. What steps will be taken to dismantle Fordo? That is not specifically covered by the agreement, but is likely to prove vital if the world, and in particular the region, is to feel confident about the most deeply buried facility and the one that potentially offers the most unrestrained danger. Does the agreement achieve IAEA inspector access to Parchin, where it is generally thought that tests have been conducted on the detonation mechanisms of a nuclear weapon?
	How will Iran be required to meet the full obligations of the IAEA under the non-proliferation treaty? After all, these go far further than the interim agreement. Is there a real understanding between the P5+1 and Iran on what is meant by those words “right to enrich”?
	What steps will the United Kingdom take—as I believe we can—to engage regional allies and friends, including Israel and the Gulf states, to provide the confidence which I suspect they genuinely seek as we go through the process of the remaining talks?
	What measures will we and others take to sustain pressure? I note what the Foreign Secretary said. The relief of $7 billion with immediate effect is obviously very important, but are the measures set out in the Statement really likely to be adequate if the process does not go forward as we wish it to? It needs continuous progress, not least because of the issues of Syria and Geneva II. The engagement of Iran in the process of sorting out the appalling problems of Syria seems to us of the highest importance, as we have shared in this House many a time.
	This has been a setback in nuclear terms for Iran, but it is not the end of the task. What are the benchmarks that we should expect for progress in reaching the comprehensive agreement? How should we make an
	assessment? I know that talks are often private and confidential, but those around the world will ask that question.
	I do not say any of that to be churlish; I have a fair measure of optimism in my heart today. However, we need urgent and sustained progress. We have made what is a very good start, but it needs to be drawn to a great conclusion. I conclude by saying that, in this process, we have had a bipartisan approach and the Government have our support.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very warmly for his very constructive and bipartisan comments. I think it is extremely important that this is seen as something to which the entire political community within Britain is committed, that we take it forward together and that we make sure that we are all well informed as we go forward together on the dangers, but also the possibilities.
	I am also grateful to the noble Lord for his compliments to the Foreign Office team and the Foreign Secretary himself. There have been occasions in the past few months when I have felt like saying to the Foreign Secretary, when I meet him, “Is this a short visit to Britain or are you here for two days?”. As we all know, he has been travelling a great deal in pursuing this issue. The noble Lord is also absolutely right to give strong compliments to the American Secretary of State and the State Department team—and, of course, the other European diplomats, not least at all our colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, who have also worked flat out on all this.
	I stress that this is only an interim agreement for six months. There is a lot more still to be done. On the question of how often inspectors will be allowed to visit, the agreement as signed provides some details on enhanced monitoring including,
	“Daily IAEA inspector access when inspectors are not present for the purpose of Design Information Verification”,
	et cetera, with relevance to Fordo and Natanz. However, the details on the exact degree of access are part of what needs to be sorted out between now and January, when we hope the six-month clock will start ticking.
	As the noble Lord will know, there is not yet agreement between the two sides on the right to enrich. We are clear that every signatory of the non-proliferation treaty has the right to develop nuclear power for peaceful nuclear purposes, but we have not yet reached a full agreement with Iran on how that fits in with the full and detailed IAEA obligations.
	Lastly, the noble Lord talked about the potential overlap with the Syrian conflict and the Geneva II talks. Let me stress that this is a negotiation with Iran about the nuclear issue; it does not have a direct overlap into other issues. Of course we may hope, however, that if we are successful in achieving a comprehensive settlement, it will have wider impacts on relations across the Middle East as a whole.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I understand about the daily inspections in two sites, but I was very particular in asking what the inspection regime for Arak will be.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I see here that the agreement also refers to a,
	“Submission of an updated … design information questionnaire … for the reactor at Arak”.
	However, the exact details of the inspection regime on an interim basis are part of the detail that has to be negotiated and agreed between the parties between now and when the interim agreement comes into implementation in, we hope, late January.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I remind the House of the benefit of short questions for my noble friend the Minister in order that all noble Lords who wish to contribute may have a decent chance of doing so.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, perhaps I might briefly ask the noble Lord to say a bit more, if he can, about the part played by our colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, in brokering this very welcome agreement.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, my understanding is that under a UN Security Council resolution, the noble Baroness was designated as the co-ordinator for these negotiations. This has been an EU exercise with the three largest Governments within the European Union, in effect, representing the EU. The noble Baroness has to some extent represented the interests of the other 25 member states and I know that she has put an enormous amount of effort into this as well.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister for repeating the Statement and, if I may say so, for his own contribution to the work of the Foreign Office team, for the outstanding work of the Foreign Secretary and Mr Kerry and, not least, for the really great steps taken—one has to add this—by the Iranian Foreign Secretary in trying to bring about an agreement, with what was perhaps the significant support of the supreme ruler in Iran. It is the outbreak of common-sense discussion, real wisdom and a real desire to avoid war which has driven this remarkable agreement. I say to my noble friend that this is a remarkable moment in history. Of course, it is not the end but the beginning of a crucial set of steps towards bringing Iran back into the comity of nations and enabling us to produce a new structure that will give both the IAEA and the protection from nuclear proliferation an extremely important new impetus.
	Perhaps I may say one other word, which is that I hope that the naysayers of this world—those who are likely to oppose this agreement—will recognise that the alternatives are terrible ones. They are in either military action or going back to absolute chaos in the Middle East. At a time when many of us are grieving over the terrible cost of the invasion of Iraq and, for that matter, the long war in Afghanistan, this is a moment when we should recognise the achievement of diplomacy and sensible discussion, as distinct from attempts to threaten other countries.
	I have two questions. First, I do not in any way disagree with the questions asked so powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, but it is crucial to recognise as well that we need to build on the elements coming
	out of this agreement that would so massively strengthen the battle against proliferation of nuclear weapons. I ask my noble friend whether the addition of the concept of enhanced monitoring that has come out of this agreement is one that, in his own view, could be extended more readily throughout the whole nuclear proliferation issue, along with the remarkable steps taken by the IAEA towards a much more powerful regime, including in effect the additional protocol, which up till now Iran has not been willing to sign.
	My second question is whether the creation of the so-called committee of the E3 plus 3 with Iran might enable us to begin to build the first of new relationships with this isolated but intensely important country, which will enable it to make a serious contribution to the Syrian civil war. In that context, there are cultural, religious and economic links that could be made with Iran that would help to bring it in from the cold and build on the hopeful measures towards a more open and democratic Iran, as we have seen in the past few months.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I thank the noble Baroness for her compliments to the Foreign Secretary and others. We hope that this will prove to have been a remarkable moment in history, but we do not yet know; the test will be in the negotiations that take place over the next year. There is no doubt that sanctions and the extent to which they were biting in Iran have played a major part in shifting opinions in the Iranian regime in all its complexity, and certainly among the Iranian public.
	In response to the noble Baroness’s questions, of course we would like to see a tougher, enhanced IAEA regime that spreads to others. I suspect that the noble Baroness knows a great deal more about this than I do, since I know that she has been involved in a lot of international discussions on this matter. That is one of the things that could grow out of these negotiations. The joint commission will, of course, be concerned with implementing the agreement. The first visit of the chargé already appointed is likely to take place in the next few weeks, and we may hope that, from that, other relationships may grow—but that will be something that we all have to work for as we work through these still complex and delicate negotiations.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: I add my congratulations to the Government on the conclusion of this interim agreement and to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton. I hope that the Minister will find some way of conveying to her the views that have been warmly expressed in this House this afternoon. She has put in a huge effort.
	This is the first step, as the Minister says, away from this conflict and others in the Middle East. Does he agree that, while it is clearly right that Israel’s concerns over Iran’s nuclear program should be treated seriously, attempts by the Prime Minister of Israel to prevent or perhaps now to wreck this agreement would be counterproductive and, in fact, against Israel’s long-term interests? Does he also agree that Saudi Arabia and our other friends in the Gulf ought to be brought to understand that a non-nuclear weapon state Iran could and should be a genuine regional player in the Gulf
	region? Finally, does he agree that the British Government should urge those points and use their influence in Washington with those who are most critical of the agreement to explain why the British Government believe that this is the right way forward?

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we are all conscious of nervousness in a number of other states in the Middle East about this agreement. We are persuaded that this enhances the security of Israel. The alternative, which might have led to a military attack on Iran, would have jeopardised a whole range of issues about the long-term security of the Middle East. We have said that to our Israeli friends. The Prime Minister spoke to Mr Netanyahu in the middle of the previous round of negotiations on 9 November and will no doubt be talking to him again. We have been saying the same to our friends in Saudi Arabia and the various Gulf states. We have many active diplomats and friends in Washington who will be saying the same to the American Congress; but the noble Lord knows that American politics are even more complex than those of most other states.

Lord Reid of Cardowan: My Lords, I add my congratulations to everyone involved and echo the sentiments that have been expressed about the role played by my noble friend Lady Ashton. She has been subjected to what I consider to be much unwarranted criticism despite the fact that she has, unheralded and unsung, had some singular successes, not least in Kosovo. This is an occasion on which the feelings of this House should be sent to our colleague.
	I have two questions. First, while we approach this with a degree of elation—it is only a step, but it is a significant first step—we can nevertheless understand why such an apparently sudden turn of events should have perhaps caused some confusion and worry among some of our traditional allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia. What steps are being taken to reassure and persuade them, if necessary, that the normalisation of relationships with Iran is in everyone’s interest, not least that of the region itself?
	Secondly, while we are right to temper our feelings of elation with a degree of caution, will the Minister bear in mind that each step that is taken, however singular it might be, opens up other opportunities? I am persuaded that some of the decisions to proceed as we did on Syria, rather than taking the alternative route, opened—as some in this House including the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, predicted—a gateway to further compromise and discussion with Iran. Similarly, although there is a long way to go on this, I urge the Minister to seek to use this gateway for further exploration of work in the area, including in Syria, involving Iran as the great nation it has been historically. It will surely return to the realms of the United Nations and international influence if it proceeds along the path it is taking at present.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I will be happy to convey the thoughts of this House to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton; I may be able to do so to her husband in the next few days. While compliments are going around, I remark that I have been immensely
	impressed, as a Liberal Democrat, in working with William Hague over the past three years. He works exceptionally hard and has travelled extensively on this. His relationship with his Russian counterpart has been quite a significant factor in building trust and co-operation across the P5. It is also worth marking that this is a triumph of European co-operation: the British working with our German and French counterparts. Perhaps even the
	Daily Mail
	might like to note that.
	On the wider region, with this deeply unstable region, with jihadists of different hues threatening even more brutal civil conflict spilling over different borders, anything which perhaps begins to reverse that potential spiral downhill is immensely worth while. We very much hope that this will help to turn that corner. We are also of course conscious that Iran is a great country with a long history, and that it has a complicated history with the United Kingdom which it has not forgotten quite as easily as we have. That is one of the many things which we need to overcome.

Lord Deben: Will my noble friend continue to make the point that this is a real contribution by the European Union and by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton? There has been a good deal of misstatement by the British press over these arrangements. This shows just what Europe can do, is doing and ought to do at a time when people sometimes try to suggest otherwise. Will the Minister say to the nay-sayers that to refuse to make this step would mean that there would be no steps? You have to make a first step. If you always say, “Well, it might go wrong”, nothing will ever go right. To hear some people, they are condemning us to a situation in which no one will ever try to do anything. That has to be the message to Mr Netanyahu and to the Saudis—that if they maintain their position, they are saying to the rest of the world that this will be an area of conflict for ever. That is not something that any of us should accept.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I thank the noble Lord for his comments and agree entirely with them. We recognise that diplomats spend an awful lot of their time working on negotiations that do not lead anywhere and trying to support compromises that are attacked on all sides. This is one happy example—we hope—of when diplomacy will have succeeded.

Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I, too, add my congratulations to all who have been involved in this development. I will ask two short questions. First, is there a mismatch between the time at which sanctions may be partially released on the one hand and the nuclear inspections on the other? Is there a problem with starting this programme only in January, which would give time for the Iranians perhaps to do more mischief in the interim period? On the question of the percentage at which enrichment is to be allowed, I have heard figures of 5% and 20%. Can the noble Lord clarify which of these is correct?

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the timing of sanctions release is very carefully calibrated. The sanctions that will be lifted are extremely limited—the majority
	of them will remain in place. Incidentally, I asked the briefing team how far humanitarian sanctions would include some relief of the controls on medicines and medical supplies for Iran. I know that that is one of the things that has hit Iran particularly hard. I, personally, welcome the provision of repairs and spare parts for Iranian airlines, because it has become increasingly unsafe to fly within Iran, as the noble Lord will know. On the gap between now and January, we cannot put that immediately into operation. However, the sanctions relief does not go into immediate operation either. We need to work through the details. On 5% and 20%, the latter is the point at which it becomes dangerous and relatively easy to carry through the further enrichment to weapons-grade uranium. Therefore the Iranians have agreed to dilute half of their current, rather large stockpile of 20% uranium back down to 5%, which is the point at which it is useful for civil nuclear power but not for very much else, and to convert the other half into uranium oxide, which also makes it useful for civil nuclear power but not for weapons.

Lord Tugendhat: My Lords, I associate myself very strongly with the words of my noble friend Lord Deben about the contribution made by the European Union and by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton. I also associate myself with the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who praised the Iranian negotiators. It is often forgotten, when one looks at the position of Iran on these matters, that it is one of the countries that have been on the receiving end of weapons of mass destruction, namely from Iraq. When a country has been on the receiving end of such weapons, that makes it very sensitive to its own ability to protect itself against all eventualities. When one looks at the Iranian nuclear programme, it is important to bear that in mind. Therefore, the concessions that the Iranians have made and the apparent good will with which they have entered into these negotiations must have required a very considerable effort on their part. We should certainly pay tribute to them and we hope very much that they, with the West, will be able to bring this to a conclusion.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. We have negotiated this agreement with the Government of Iran. As all noble Lords will know, Iran is an extremely complex country with an extremely complex political system. We hope that the Government of Iran will make this stick. Nevertheless, we know that there are elements within the political system of Iran who may not be quite as happy with it as the Government are. That is part of what we will test out in the coming months.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I associate myself with all the congratulations that have been offered to those who we can name because of their pre-eminent role in what has happened but also to those many diplomats whose names we do not know. One of the facilities that has caused most concern is the underground nuclear facility where uranium enrichment has not been carried out at a nuclear level but has certainly been produced in quantities that have given great cause for concern. Will the noble Lord
	assure the House that the underground facilities will be inspected by the IAEA, as my noble friend Lord Triesman asked?
	In asking my next question, I declare an unremunerated interest as the chairman of the British side of the Saudi-British Business Council. I returned from Saudi Arabia early this morning. A considerable job will obviously have to be done to convince many of our friends in the Gulf states of the wisdom of the agreement that has been made. Will the Minister tell the House a little more about what is intended to be done now—not what has been done in the past because that has still left a lot of questions in the minds of colleagues, particularly in Saudi Arabia—to give assurance to the Gulf states about the agreement that has been reached?

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, a great many officials have worked long hours and have spent a long time on planes going back and forth. It so happens that the State Department official I know best has led the State Department delegation at official level. According to everything I have heard, she has done extremely well. However, there is still a great deal of work to be done. On the underground facilities at Fordo, the exact details of the inspection regime remain to be negotiated and agreed, and then enforced, between now and the end of January. However, it is clear that we expect to have access to all these facilities. Of course, there are Saudi and Gulf state concerns, as there are concerns in Israel, and we are in active dialogue with the Saudis and others about them. It would be disastrous for the Middle East if this were to descend into a sectarian Sunni/Shia conflict. Let us hope that one of the outcomes of the agreement will be to reverse what some of us feared might be taking us in that direction.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
	 — 
	Committee (4th Day) (Continued)

Amendment 22R
	 Moved by Lord Deben
	22R: Before Clause 55, insert the following new Clause—
	“Extension of “the controlled area of Parliament Square” to the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster
	(1) Section 142 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1) after subsection (1)(b) insert—
	“(c) the footways of Bridge Street, St Margaret’s Street, Abingdon Street, and so much of the footway of Great College Street as immediately adjoins Abingdon Green,
	(d) Old Palace Yard,
	(e) Abingdon Green, and
	(f) the northern end of Victoria Tower Gardens.”
	(3) In subsection (2)—
	(a) before the definition of “the central garden of Parliament Square” insert—
	““Abingdon Green” means the garden constructed on the sites of properties formerly known as 17-28 (both inclusive) Abingdon Street, London SW1, and the garden surrounding the adjoining Jewel Tower;”
	(b) after the definition of “footway” insert—
	““the northern end of Victoria Tower Gardens” means that part of Victoria Tower Gardens which lies within 100 metres of the metal railings which mark is northern boundary;
	“Old Palace Yard” includes the King George V Memorial and the surrounding lawns and paving.””

Lord Deben: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and those of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.
	This is a simple and, I hope, uncontroversial concept. The other House introduced legislation to deal with the twin issues of enabling access for those who wish to protest or state their case to the Houses of Parliament, but in a way that does not inconvenience unduly the work of the Houses of Parliament and, indeed, other people who wish to use Parliament Square. Parliament took some time to get the right balance. I think it would be true to say that to start with we did not have proper protection; we then moved to a position in which many felt that there was not enough freedom for people to demonstrate; and then to the present arrangement, which I think now has all-party support, which states that people can properly demonstrate but that they must have permission to use equipment that amplifies the words they say. That is a not unreasonable request, and that is the balance that has been reached. Unfortunately, the present rule refers only to Parliament Square itself and the part closest to the House of Commons.
	It was always thought that if there were movement in any other direction, the police would be happy to take action. However, without blaming anyone, it seems that that is not the case. The police would prefer not to intervene. The problem that arises is that this means that on an increasing number of occasions, part of this House is almost impossible to work in. I came to terms with this when I was trying to have a detailed discussion with one of the officers of the House and we had to move out of his office into the corridor because we could not have a conversation, so loud was the noise from outside. It also did not help that one could not hear what the noise outside was about, because the trouble with much of the amplification used is that it obscures the sense while increasing the noise. I fear that this is one aspect of human life today in any case, but it is particularly notable in this case.
	The difficulty is merely geographical. The law at the moment stops before you get to the House of Lords—and those who protest have discovered that. They feel that it is perfectly reasonable, therefore, to do within the curtilage of the House of Lords precisely what they used to do, to the concern of the public, in the area immediately in front of the House of Commons. All my amendment therefore does is increase the geographical area by the minimum necessary to provide the House of Lords with the same protection and opening that the House of Commons already has, without the intervention of the police.
	There is an additional reason about which the House should know. On Sunday, for example, when the House of Lords was not sitting, a large collection of people gathered outside the House of Lords to address us. Of course, the only people whom they addressed were those attempting to worship in
	Westminster Abbey and St Margaret’s, Westminster. I received no direct complaint about that, but there is no doubt that the noise made the worshippers’ activities, which were perfectly proper for a Sunday, almost impossible if one was close enough to the noise.
	I hope that no one in this House would accuse me of being anything other than usually entirely on the side of freedom. I have a long history of doing that and I do not want to restrict anyone from protesting. Indeed, I can think of few happier occasions than when many of us went out to join those who had come to celebrate the passing of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act. It was a happy and cheerful activity, and not something that one would have wanted in any way to stop. However, what has to be stopped is the kind of behaviour that made it impossible for the House of Commons to continue and that caused it to pass legislation that protected it and—I am sure by some oversight—failed to move just far enough to protect this House.
	I therefore very much hope that we will be able to have this protection. The convenience of the Bill is that such a provision is clearly within the remit of the Long Title, and therefore that we can pop in the new clause to no one’s detriment. We will still ensure that Her Majesty’s subjects who wish to complain to us about any subject under the sun will continue to be able to do so but, we hope, with a voice that is clear but not so loud as to be impossible. I beg to move.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in his amendment. I have no objection to people who wish to exercise their democratic right by demonstrating. However, while they have that right, I believe that those of us who work in the Palace of Westminster, and particularly those who work in offices on the West Front, have an equal right to work in an environment that is not polluted by electronically enhanced voices and music at volumes which, at times, become unbearable.
	On one occasion during the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill, my noble friend Lady Finlay and I were trying to write speeches on behalf of those who were bellowing through a loudspeaker outside our window. We put on our coats and went to ask, politely, the young lady who was making the noise if she would kindly modulate it. Her response was to ask why we could not wear ear-plugs. After we had spent some time trying to explain to those involved that they were defeating their objective, they finally conceded and stood or sat quietly for the rest of the afternoon. I have no objection to that sort of demonstration.
	Without doubt, those demonstrating for several days while we were debating the same-sex marriage Bill excelled themselves. I will never again hear “I’m Getting Married in the Morning”, or the rival “Amazing Grace”, without cringing. After several days of torment, I tried the noise pollution officer at Westminster City Council. He said that it was not his responsibility but was a police matter. I was told to dial 111. The police said that they could do nothing as the demonstrators were acting within their rights. Unfortunately, noble Lords and officials who work in the West Front offices
	cannot simply pick up a pen and pad and move to a quieter location; we are somewhat tied to our desks by computers, phones and files—a captive audience, in other words.
	The amendment does not stop those who wish to demonstrate, nor would I wish that to happen. Members of another place, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, told us, successfully moved the noise from their environs. We have only this amendment between us and our sanity.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I intervene briefly to strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I refer back to two previous contributions that I made on this subject over recent years and, in particular, to correspondence from Councillor Colin Barrow of Westminster City Council. When the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill was going through Parliament, he wrote to the department expressing concern about how it would operate. This was at a time when, as the noble Lord may recall, the square was inhabited—if I may use that term—by a lot of protesters who were setting up tents and making a lot of noise. At that time, I did not make the proposal that I want to make today. I am using this amendment as a peg on which to promote a principle.
	We all believe in the right to demonstrate but we are concerned about noise. We know that people on the West Front—particularly officials of the political parties who work in offices there—have a lot of problems when demonstrations take place, especially during the summer months when they wish to open their windows and, of course, the noise becomes even more prevalent. As Colin Barrow proposed in his correspondence of some years ago, it may be possible to manage the whole square or the green areas in front of Parliament in a better way.
	I propose that we establish a centre on one of those pieces of land where people can apply to put up their stands on behalf of various campaigns, perhaps on a rotational basis, months in advance. It would be a lobbying building for Parliament and it would give people the opportunity to recognise that we want to help them protest, but in an organised way. In doing so, we would support the principles set out by Councillor Colin Barrow of Westminster City Council when he asked for a more properly managed square-control arrangement.
	I know that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, is more tightly defined—he is dealing with a narrower area—but I believe that we should think in terms of something more organised whereby organisations throughout the country can apply to demonstrate. At the moment, in the Upper Committee Corridor we effectively have a more organised arrangement which people can apply to use, but they cannot demonstrate. I want something a little more aggressive than what is available with the displays there, so that people can put their case. Instead of MPs simply driving past and not being able to read the signs or hear what is being said because the noise is overwhelming, there would be a place where MPs or Peers could stroll over, walk through the centre, see who had their stands there, talk to the lobbyists and then leave. That would
	be a far more sensible operation. I am not asking for it to be set up tomorrow, but in the longer term, it would be wise if we were to set off down that road. I support the noble Lord’s amendment.

Lord Martin of Springburn: My Lords, the loud-hailing which took place in Parliament Square was a disgrace. Most of us who have fought elections at council and parliamentary level have used loud-hailing equipment. When that equipment goes above a certain noise level, it becomes a breach of the peace. It is not the first time. When we have been out on the hustings, we have been reminded of that.
	That strange character sat in Parliament Square for 10 years, and all sorts of organisations tried to help: the Greater London Council, Westminster Council, the police, Parliament and even the Home Office. Legislation went through both Houses, but it was not strong enough, and the judges said, “No. The chap who is there”—I forget his name—“can use the pavement because it is not really a pavement in the proper sense of the word”. All I can say is that if somebody were sitting outside their house, they would find good legal cause to get rid of him after 10 years.
	The other place found arrangements to prevent loud-hailing at that end, but it cannot speak for this autonomous body. That is why the demonstrators have moved up. However, if anyone uses a loud-hailer that gets above a certain level, they are being a nuisance. Even the media agreed with that. The people who had been aggravated most by the person who was on the loud-hailer all day and every day, the character who stood there for 10 years, were those in the Press Gallery. When Parliament went into Recess, people from the Press Gallery went out and told the person concerned in no uncertain terms, “Please stop”.
	I support the amendment. An overall body should get control of this situation because the difficulty that Westminster Council had was that its only way of stopping the noise was if the sound level went above a certain decibel level. It had to come along with its testing equipment, and it could have been that the wind was in a different direction or whatever. I know that this amendment is tight. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, suggested we should have a stall where people could come and demonstrate. No one is stopping demonstrations, but this is my understanding of a demonstration: the first time I had a demonstration at Parliament, I was a young trade unionist; I had a day off work; we travelled down in the morning by train; and at night we went back on the train and were away. It was not permanent.
	Parliament Square is like a park. It is a lovely place where people should be able to take their family. There should not be a stall there. The place should be enjoyed by everyone. Millions have been spent on Westminster Abbey; millions have been spent on St Margaret’s Church, with which we have a close connection; and, of course, millions have been spent on both Houses, Portcullis House and the other extensions. If it is not already the case, the whole area should be a world heritage site. We should not have someone coming along with a loud-hailer that is so loud that people cannot get on with their proper business in the offices.

Lord Marlesford: There was a campaign for a long time—much too long—to remove the most unsatisfactory arrangement under which certain individual protestors hogged the space in Parliament Square, to which the noble Lord, Lord Martin, has just referred. It was eventually ended and the square is infinitely better from every point of view. We were all strongly in favour of having protests, but not permanent protests. I am not absolutely clear where the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is suggesting his hut should be. I believe that the area, as the noble Lord, Lord Martin, said, is very much a world heritage site, and it would be difficult to accommodate a permanent building in any of those spaces without intruding on the area. I strongly support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Deben.

Baroness Hamwee: I support the notion, if not necessarily the detail of finding a way of using what is at the heart of our democracy and an area that has Parliament, Westminster Abbey and the Supreme Court, around it, and which is indeed a world heritage site—I shall not get into the issue of whether traffic should be using it—to provide a means of public expression. I mean expression by the public, not those of us who are in the buildings. That is something in which the Hansard Society is interested as well.
	My noble friend’s speech was about the amplification of noise and his amendment would extend the prohibitions to the other prohibited activities, which are about putting up tents, having what is called sleeping equipment, and so on. The noble Lord, Lord Martin, may have referred to this, but other noble Lords have focused on noise. If there is to be an extension—I agree that the fewest extensions or prohibitions the better—I wonder whether it is necessary to deal with both aspects.

Lord Deben: Yes, it parallels exactly what is already enacted for Parliament Square. The reason for that is: when people look at the present situation they could easily duplicate what was the major problem in Parliament Square, which was people living there week in, week out. It excludes that, but it does not exclude the normal arrival to speak or to put forward views, or indeed to ask permission for loudspeakers, which is also possible. It would merely put us in the same position as the House of Commons, which seems to be a not unreasonable proposition.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I accept that, of course, and the possibility of seeking permission. But we have not experienced the problem of people moving into Abingdon Green, and so on. I think that my noble friend will understand my slight caution about that part of the amendment.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I realise that when the House is in a mood of almost unanimity the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, can be relied on to inject a notion of something or other into the discussion. It is therefore very dangerous to say that perhaps this amendment is not quite right, but I do so as somebody with an office in Millbank House. I notice that the boundaries that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has created would effectively mean that Millbank House
	could be completely surrounded by demonstrators, which would be entirely consistent with what has been said.
	I am not sure that if they were to use loud-hailing equipment it would make a substantial difference. I wonder whether the boundaries are set quite right to cover the full extremities of the parliamentary estate, bearing in mind the way in which sound carries. If the Government are going to take away this amendment—as I hope they are—and think about it carefully and positively, I suggest that they look at precisely those boundaries to make sure that the whole of the parliamentary estate is covered.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I also have been campaigning on this issue for a long time, not least because the gentleman to whom we have referred was there for so long; he seemed to live in a tent and would hang out his washing from time to time. We should remember that people from all over the world come to see this site and that that vista was ruined for a long time because it was so dirty and untidy.
	What is now before us is perhaps not understood by Members who do not have offices in the front row, as it were, of this House. If your office is in the middle or towards the back of the House of Lords, you will not hear anything. Indeed, during the previous campaign we fought on this matter, I found that this was very much so; people did not understand always if their office was a fair distance from the front. Reference to this has been made by the mover of the amendment, which I strongly support, and by others: if you live in that particular part of the building, all the papers you should read, all the briefings you should attempt to gain, and all the speeches you might plan to make are deeply affected, to say nothing of the letters you are expected to write to those who write to you telling you of a problem that they have or of a problem that exists elsewhere.
	There was a campaign last week which went on for a long time. It was for the Ghurkhas—for whom I have great sympathy and normally would support very strongly—but by the time they had finished I wanted to go out and tell them that I would never support them again after what they had done to my work programme for hours and hours on end. Those of us who live in these offices—and we do live in them for the time we are here—have not only a job to do but a duty to fulfil. It always worries me that one person’s human rights seem to be contrary to another person’s human rights.
	Of course I acknowledge completely that everyone should have a right to campaign if they feel strongly about an issue. That is not what we are arguing about. I cannot go along with my long-term colleague and friend, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, because Members of Parliament would not go to another building across the road to hear what people were thinking. Nor would many members of the public go in because they are not the people the demonstrators are trying to reach anyway—they are trying to reach us. The fact of the matter is that they are annoying us
	all too often. A recent campaign, which involved raucous and entirely unmelodic singing, went on and on and I defy anyone to have done their work during that time.
	We do not want to stop anyone trying to put their views across to us and asking for a change. We are saying that we have rights too. We have a right and a duty to fulfil all the things that we have to do here and at the moment we are not enabled to. I support the amendment and I hope it will go through in the spirit that so many people displayed when they made their speeches.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I listened to the debate on my old boss’s amendment with great interest and pleasure. This is what could be called “Bella Figura”. The Italians, Germans and French would never put up with these parades we have had in front of us or the noise we have endured—they would have been gone in no time at all. Much as I sympathise with many of their objectives, I very much deplore the way they try to attain them.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, this has been a very good small debate on what I consider to be a very important subject. My noble friend has done the House a great favour by raising this important matter for us to debate. I will not mention all those who have spoken but, without exception, all noble Lords have recognised the issue that we have to deal with. I hope I can demonstrate that the Government are looking for a positive way forward on this.
	I am sure that many other noble Lords besides those who have spoken will have strong views on the noise generated by the demonstrations that take place in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster. We have, of course, been here before. As noble Lords have pointed out, legislation to deal with such demonstrations was first passed in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. We should not forget just how contentious that legislation was, which is why it was repealed and replaced with more proportionate measures in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, to which my noble friend referred.
	My noble friend and the Committee will be sensitive to the need, before passing further legislation, to be very careful about taking any action that may impact disproportionately on people’s right to protest and their freedom of speech. However, I recognise the gross disturbance which amplified sound is now bringing to otherwise legitimate demonstrations. The proximity to the working offices of the House of Lords makes it difficult for Peers, officers of the House and staff to conduct their parliamentary duties. A number of noble Lords have referred to that.
	With the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 having addressed the problems in Parliament Square, noble Lords may feel that some of those problems have been displaced, particularly to the small area around the George V Memorial and the surrounding lawns and paving, as referred to in the amendment. Perhaps it would help noble Lords if I describe the law as it applies for areas away from Parliament Square.
	The 2011 Act strengthened local authorities’ by-law-making powers, in particular by including a power to seize items used in connection with the contravention of a by-law. Westminster City Council and the Royal Parks authority updated their by-laws immediately after the relevant provisions of the 2011 Act were brought into force. The by-laws include measures to deal with tents, structures and excess noise.
	These by-laws, in many ways, already have the effect intended by this amendment. Westminster City Council by-laws and the Royal Parks by-laws contain strict noise control provisions covering Old Palace Yard and surrounding areas such as Abingdon Green. The by-laws state that a person should not make or allow to be caused any noise which is so loud or so continuous as to give reasonable cause for annoyance to others in the area. But here is the rub: the enforcement of by-laws is a matter for Westminster City Council and, ultimately, the police. Suspected breach of a by-law could lead to arrest and prosecution. In taking any enforcement decisions, the authorised officers or the police would take into account the need to allow a right to protest outside Parliament. Achieving a balance seems to be part of the difficulty. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has suggested an idea that recognises this to try to avoid the gross disruption experienced currently. I do not know. Some noble Lords have questioned what he has proposed, but I thank him for giving us a possible solution.

Lord Campbell-Savours: There is a precedent for building on sensitive land within the area of Westminster; that is, the proposal being made by both Houses to build an educational centre of 6,000 square feet on Victoria Tower Gardens, which is the subject of a lot of debate at the moment. The proposal I am making is not that it would be one exhibitor; there might be a dozen exhibitors on rotation, drawing on different organisations, coming in nationally. Members of Parliament and Peers would visit in those circumstances because it would be a lobbying centre, and it would set a precedent that I think might be mirrored by other parliaments.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I thank the noble Lord for elaborating on what he is thinking. I thank him, genuinely, for trying to think positively about how to handle the rightful expression and the disruption to which Members, staff and officers of this House are currently subject because of the excessive noise.
	Of course, there are further provisions. The Public Order Act 1986 allows the police to place conditions on static protests or demonstrations. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 allows the police to deal with noise issues. But enforcement lies at the bottom of all these measures at present, and the police need to balance the management of disruption caused by any protest against people’s right to protest—I think we would all accept that.
	The police have sufficient powers under the Public Order Act, and the police and Westminster City Council can enforce by-laws that cater for noise issues around the Palace of Westminster. The issue, therefore, is how the existing by-laws are enforced. One would have to say that this is an operational matter for the police and
	Westminster City Council. That said, I fully recognise the degree of distress caused by the repeated use of musical instruments, loud-hailers and amplifiers in the areas adjoining your Lordships’ House and the disruptive effect that can have. I have been told—and we have heard today—of Peers evacuating their offices to work elsewhere, and of another who has been made to feel physically ill as a result of the noise. This cannot be tolerated.
	I propose to my noble friend that he and I meet the Metropolitan Police and Westminster City Council to discuss this issue ahead of Report to examine a way forward of dealing with this problem. I suggest that we also include the Dean of Westminster Abbey. As my noble friend has pointed out, the abbey is also subject to the gross disturbance that amplified sound is now bringing to some demonstrations.

Lord Marlesford: Before my noble friend leaves this point, I remind him—the trouble is, he was not particularly involved in it—of when we were campaigning against what was happening in Parliament Square, which brought such discredit to the whole area and did not add to the credit of Parliament. I had a Private Member’s Bill on this and the argument that was always used was, “Oh, there are lots of powers”, and they quoted quite a number of the Acts of Parliament that my noble friend has just been quoting. It did not work. It was much too complicated for the individual authorities—whether it was the Met, Westminster City Council or the health and safety people—to do anything about it. The Act which was introduced to deal with Parliament Square appears to have been very successful. I suggest to the Minister that, much better than trying to play around with existing legislation which might be relevant to dealing with the problem, let us build on what has dealt with the problem in Parliament Square.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I explained that I had been in touch with Westminster City Council and the police. I know what the law is and I spent a whole afternoon trying to point it out to them, but they said, “No, it’s not us. Not me, guv”, so I was left frustrated. I hope that the Minister will therefore take notice of what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has said.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I do absolutely. I need to satisfy myself, before we move on, that the existing provisions are not being enforced by Westminster City Council and the police, because they are both involved in enforcing them. I want a meeting to make sure that we have thoroughly thought through any provisions before we put them in legislation; I think that the House would expect that. We of course have an interest: we work here; we live here; we suffer the noise and disruption ourselves. We need to be able to justify in the wider Parliament other than this Chamber and even in the big Parliament of the people outside any action that we choose to take. I am very mindful of what my noble friend says. Enforcement has not been successful.

Baroness Trumpington: Has the Minister left out Marble Arch, the obvious place being Speakers’ Corner, to go on existing?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: There are certain places where there has been a tradition of people being able to assemble to speak. The last time I went to Speakers’ Corner, I cannot remember loud hailers or blast master amplification being used as part and parcel of that process. It is the amplification of the message, seeking almost to penetrate this very Chamber, which I think is causing the difficulty.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: Perhaps I may ask one further short question. In the many cases up and down country where raucous parties have taken place, all it seems to need to get the police in action, on the spot and stopping the trouble is for one or two people to complain. If one or two Members of Parliament, be they Peers or from another place, had the courage to go and complain to the police about the noise, does the Minister think that, under present rules, that might stop it?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I have to hold out that possibility but, on the other hand, it might not. If the latter is the case, it is perfectly proper for this House to seek a remedy which enables it to perform its function and for its Members to carry out their duties without the gross disturbance which they have otherwise been subject to.
	We need to progress with a certain amount of caution here. We have to justify anything that we do by way of legislation with our friends in another place and with the greater public opinion outside. I advocate that as a matter of caution. However, we need to seek a way forward. I am looking to work with others to find a solution. We need to make sure that it is a sensitive and effective solution. I hope that with that and all that I have said my noble friend will be ready to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Deben: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the consideration with which he approached my amendment. The truth is that the laws and by-laws to which he referred exist but are not enforced. He made that point. That was precisely what happened in Parliament Square. Parliament and the House of Commons decided that the square would need a special arrangement because that was the only way to make sure it was enforced. It has now been enforced in the new, much more elegant form brought in by the 2011 Act, about which I have heard no complaints, even from the most extreme of campaigners. They see that the balance is roughly there. It seems odd that what is sauce for the elected goose should not be sauce for the unelected, but happily continuing, gander. I have difficulty in understanding why there should be a difficulty, if I may put it as elegantly as that.
	I am very happy to meet my noble friend and all the other people he spoke of, but I suspect that the House will want to come back to this at a later stage. However much conversation we have with the same people who failed to regulate the matters in Parliament Square before the law was changed, I suspect that we will want to come back to this House and propose again the simple concept of moving what is now limited to Parliament Square further along the road. Of course, I undertake that, in those discussions, the actual boundaries will be looked at again in case we have not quite got
	them right. I do not want to go further than is absolutely necessary because I do not want this to be different from, or impinge upon, other jurisdictions. This is about the Houses of Parliament. At the moment, it is about one House of Parliament—all I want to do is make sure that it is about both Houses. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment but hope that our discussions will end up with an amendment that is acceptable to the Government when we come on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 22R withdrawn.
	Clause 55: Power to make orders
	Amendment 23
	 Moved by Lord Greaves
	23: Clause 55, page 32, line 8, leave out “two” and insert “three”

Lord Greaves: My Lords, your Lordships may be satisfied that we are moving back to stuff that is in the Bill as opposed to perfectly legitimate discussions about things that noble Lords have taken the opportunity to raise. In moving Amendment 23, I will speak also to the other 12 amendments in the group. In fact, I will speak to the first eight or nine amendments on the basis that my noble friend the Minister has kindly agreed to write to me about the others—unless other noble Lords raise them.
	We move on to Part 4, Chapter 2 of the Bill, which is about public spaces protection orders—a new form of order that district or unitary councils will be able to make to tackle anti-social behaviour in their area. Rather than speaking in detail to each of these amendments, it would help at this stage if I made a few general comments to introduce public spaces protection orders.
	Clause 55 is the defining clause. It says that the local authority—the district council—can make a public spaces protection order in response to circumstances in which,
	“activities carried on in a public place … have had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality”.
	“Public place” is defined quite widely. It does not have to be owned by the public sector. The test here, of a
	“detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality”,
	is essentially the same test as for community protection notices.
	There is one fundamental distinction between this order, the PSPO, and the other measures we have been discussing so far, such as IPNAs, criminal behaviour orders and community protection notices, which are all about the control of individuals, of people acting either individually or in a group. Public spaces protection orders are different because they are about public spaces and controls over those spaces—in other words, controls on land and what people can do on that land—so they affect everyone, or everyone in a category of persons. That has civil liberties implications, because clearly they will capture innocent people who may then be penalised and, if they breach the order, could end up facing criminal charges.
	I should say that I am not against public spaces protection orders. I think that they will be extremely useful devices for local authorities, as long as they are used sensibly and proportionately. The amendments in this group and some of my other amendments are not, therefore, against PSPOs; they are probing how they will work, what safeguards are already in the Bill and what further safeguards may be needed.
	There are three main concerns about PSPOs. The first is the one that I have already raised: they may remove liberties of the citizen in public spaces from the vast majority of people who have done nothing wrong and do not intend to do anything wrong, or at least nothing significant. The Bill states that the orders can be levied for up to three years—the assumption is that that will be standard—and then prolonged for another three years ad infinitum. In effect, they could become permanent restrictions on what people can do in public places and, in extremis, whether they can go there or not.
	The second concern relates to the possibility that public spaces protection orders could be used to keep people out of an area, not just to control what they can and cannot do within that area. For some types of land designated precisely for access and informal recreation, public spaces protection orders will in effect nullify and negate the very purpose of the designation of that land. That part of the proposals has caused considerable alarm among organisations such as the Ramblers and the Open Spaces Society, to which the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred. The threat, as it is seen, is that some or all the rights under existing legislation specifically for those types of land could be removed, and that when proposals are made to remove them under the new legislation, all the existing safeguards to ensure that such rights are not removed unless absolutely necessary will be swept away in a pretty easy, arbitrary manner.
	The third concern, which I think we can deal with now, is that as the Bill has gone through its parliamentary process, PSPOs have not been much scrutinised—certainly not adequately, in my view. The pre-legislative consideration of the Bill by the Home Affairs Committee dealt with PSPOs in a fairly cursory way; they got some discussion, but not a lot, as the Bill went through the House of Commons. We must scrutinise this part of the Bill carefully to see whether we can persuade the Government to make changes to prevent some local authorities taking the provision to the limit so that it goes further than is reasonable.
	To avoid having to go through all the amendments in detail, I submitted a list of the questions they cover to the Minister, who kindly agreed to look at them. The basic questions are, first: will the orders have to be based on evidence—in other words, past and present activities on the land—as well as a concern that they will happen or continue, or can they be based solely on a concern or belief that activities will occur in the future? Secondly, can a PSPO be made only on the area where evidence exists or could problems in one area be used as a reason for a much bigger area, or even a different area, being made subject to one?
	A further point has arisen since I had discussions with the Minister, which is whether the conditions that can be put on a PSPO can apply only to activities and the detrimental effect identified before people say, “Let’s have a PSPO”. Is it only those activities and the detrimental effect which have been identified and defined under the first condition, in Clause 55(2)(a), or could anything be put on once those are considered? Should the criteria for making an order not take account of the downsides of making it, rather than merely considering the benefits of doing so—in other words, should the legislation have a test of balance of judgment introduced into it? Should the prohibitions and requirements not be necessary rather than just reasonable? To what extent is discrimination acceptable between different types or groups of people, or differently aged people, in setting the prohibitions and requirements in the order? This is an important part of the Bill and I hope that we will scrutinise it carefully. I beg to move Amendment 23.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, this is a large group of amendments which essentially comes down to the purpose of these orders. Perhaps I may take the last point first as that is often easier. The conditions that have to be considered include that the effect of the activities, in the second limb,
	“justifies the restrictions imposed by the notice”.
	I am looking at Clause 55(3)(c), so there is a requirement for balance in the creation of a public spaces protection order within the Bill. It is certainly not the case that, in introducing these public spaces protection orders, we are seeking to give local authorities an undiluted right to close off areas without proper consideration of the legal and proper activity being conducted in those areas.
	The problem with my noble friend’s amendments is that he is suggesting that the lives of people in the locality would already have to have been affected for some time before the council could act. We are anticipating that there will be circumstances in which, because of other activities, the council may wish to create a public spaces protection order in advance of, let us say, a new development. For example, if a council wanted to open a new children’s play area, it may wish to place restrictions on that area either to prohibit dogs from entering or to allow them only if they are kept on a lead. If my noble friend’s amendments were accepted, the council would have to wait until irresponsible dog ownership turned up as a feature before it could address that. We dealt in a previous debate with the problems that can come through displaced activities, so I hope that my noble friend will understand that we see it as being for a council to exercise judgment on these matters.
	Only those behaviours that are linked to a detrimental activity can be applied. Any additions to that list would be treated as a variation under Clause 57 and be subject to the same tests and consultation. Having got a public spaces protection order, it can be varied only by starting the consultative process again. I hope that my noble friend is reassured by that; if he is not, I can tell him that any variation of an order could be challenged in the High Court. Where orders are deemed
	to be unnecessary or disproportionate, there is still the ability for those affected to challenge it in court. The council will be mindful of this when judging whether the test has been met.
	I fully understand why my noble friend is making these points. In the draft guidance published last month we have included guidelines on the aspects and impacts that should be considered before an order is used. We will, of course, continue to develop the guidance to try and cover the point raised by my noble friend, but I fear that including it in the Bill would make it hard for a council to act quickly and deal effectively with anti-social behaviour.
	I think that I have covered the issue of the future impacts. Regarding Amendment 32, I would like to be clear that the aim behind this amendment is to allow councils to design solutions around local needs. Clause 55(6) will result in the closure of rights of way being less likely under a new regime. It will allow specific problems to be dealt with without the recourse to completely closing a public space, as I have said.
	There is some flexibility in these orders that will suit both those who wish to go about exercising their legitimate rights and those who wish to make sure that anti-social behaviour can be tackled. I agree with my noble friend that these orders have to be used proportionately. The benefit to the community in tackling detrimental activities must be balanced against the impact of any prohibitions or requirements. I believe that local councils are capable of making such assessments and coming to the right decisions, having consulted the local community. If they get it wrong, or are perceived to have got it wrong, an order can be challenged in the courts. Given the safeguards that we have built into the legislation, which are reinforced by the draft guidance we have published, the Bill gets the balance right and I hope that my noble friend would be willing, on that basis, to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, that takes us into some very useful discussion and I am grateful to my noble friend for his careful response. What he said about play areas and the ability of councils to put a public spaces protection order on a new play area to keep dogs out, for example, or perhaps because they wish to have areas under a PSPO where dogs would have to be kept on a lead, indicates that what is being proposed is not a minor thing. It is a very powerful new proposal with a strong power. Some might think that it is far-reaching and draconian but, if councils behave properly, it may be valuable.
	As a local councillor, I have to say that I am very attracted by the idea of being able to make public spaces protection orders. I can think of all sorts of places where suitable orders might be introduced—so I am not against them at all. What I am concerned about is whether there are sufficient safeguards. My noble friend refers to the right of appeal to the High Court but, in terms of closing footpaths, the right of appeal on closing a right of way is to the magistrates’ court. Most people concerned about such a matter can undertake an appeal to the magistrates’ court. They would not want to go to the High Court to appeal against an order. There is a real concern here that the powers being given to local authorities are very strong,
	potentially very beneficial but also powers that could be misused. Being able to go only to the High Court is a problem.
	Finally, the Minister referred to the draft guidance that has been produced, which is very helpful and useful. Like my noble friend Lady Hamwee on guidance, earlier today I said that it was a good thing that in this Bill that there was not much provision for the Secretary of State to make orders and regulations. In practice, what is going to happen is that the Secretary of State will issue guidance, which in effect will be instructions to local authorities. It will be a very brave local authority that does not follow the guidance. I am not sure that non-statutory guidance in that sense is any better than statutory orders and regulations, which at least potentially can have some parliamentary scrutiny. However, I am very grateful for my noble friend’s comments. There are further things to discuss here before we get to Report but, in the mean time, I beg to leave the amendment.
	Amendment 23 withdrawn.
	Amendments 24 to 29 not moved.
	Amendments 30 and 31 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Amendments 32 to 34 not moved.
	Amendment 34A
	 Moved by Lord Greaves
	34A: Clause 55, page 32, line 36, at end insert—
	“( ) A prohibition or requirement made under subsection (6) may not prevent the use of the public space by persons—
	(a) bearing placards, offering to talk to people or providing literature or other material relating to political or other beliefs and campaigns;
	(b) assembling or parading for the purpose of promoting political or other beliefs and campaigns;
	(c) making speeches whether or not amplified in pursuit of such aims.”

Lord Greaves: My Lords, perhaps we should have discussed this amendment along with the last amendment but one about goings-on around this building. This amendment tests to what extent public spaces protection orders can remove rights of peaceful assembly in public places. In practice, public spaces protection orders are not a suitable way of limiting freedom of speech, assembly or campaigning. We have just discussed a very extreme example. There may be occasions when these rights have to be curtailed or regulated and controlled for the benefit of people in general, people in the locality and even people in your Lordships’ House. But in most cases, when public protest gets out of hand, it is possible to deal with it through existing public order legislation. In some cases, it requires local by-laws but, by and large, it is dealt with fairly well. People ask whether we should not be able to ban those such as the English Defence League from having a demonstration in the middle of Bradford, but there is legislation to deal with that. If existing legislation is insufficient, it is in the area of public order legislation or local legislation that people should look.
	It would be wrong for these orders, which can be made quickly and easily by a local authority, with a minimum degree of consultation—even with the welcome amendments that the Government will propose in a minute or two—to be used to limit basic rights of assembly, protest and debates in public places and freedom of speech. Specific problems should be dealt with in a one-off manner on the basis of existing law. If there are very special places, such as outside this building, where people think that there ought to be more control, it should be dealt with on that basis. If there is a need to improve the law, it should not be done on the basis of orders that are easy to make and can last for three years—and in practice, by extending them, can last for ever. The rights of assembly, free speech and peaceful campaigning are too important to be dealt with in this rather arbitrary manner. I beg to move.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, although the words of his Amendment 34A may not find too much favour in the light of the previous debate, when it refers to,
	“making speeches whether or not amplified”,
	given the discussion that we have had about amplified speeches outside your Lordships’ House.
	There is an important criterion on which, I believe, the noble Lord is seeking reassurance from the Government. People have a democratic and legitimate right to protest in public places, and we would really not want to see these powers misused, if people are campaigning or lobbying for a particular cause or issue, although I do not think that that is the Government’s intention. It would be helpful to have some comment from the Minister. Can he give reassurance that there are no circumstances in which this provision would be allowed to curtail legitimate debate, campaigning or protest? As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, there are other ways in which such issues should be dealt with. We all know of cases where laws have been used for purposes other than those intended by Governments. As the Minister will appreciate, it creates huge suspicion when provisions seem open-ended. I hope that he can give reassurance and be very clear on that, perhaps stating specifically in guidance that the intention would not be to limit in any way the democratic responsibilities of the citizen.

Baroness Hamwee: I will not waste the Committee’s time by repeating the arguments, but this is an instance where guidance would not be enough. Unless we can have hard examples of where the provision might be properly used to restrict assembly where there is no other provision to deal with any of the problems, it would not be adequate for guidance to say something like, “The Government would not expect this to be used in such and such a situation”. This is a power that I would be very unhappy to give to anyone because of its misuse, unless there was a very good reason to allow it here and they have no other tools.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I am really grateful for this debate. It has been very helpful to the Committee to be able to talk in these terms. I draw noble Lords’
	attention to Clause 55 and how it is constructed. I am not a parliamentary draftsman and sometimes legislation is difficult to read or understand, but here the tests that are required on public spaces protection orders are quite clear and explicit.
	We all agree that rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly are important, and we would not wish to interfere with them in this Bill. Noble Lords are right to seek from me reassurance on this. What the amendment seeks to do is not as important as the probing that lies behind it. The legislation sets a very high test that must be applied before a public spaces protection order is used, as I will explain. The first condition of the test, in Clause 55(2), states that the activities must have had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality or it is likely that such activities will occur which could have this effect. The second condition is that the activity is persistent, unreasonable and is justified by the restrictions on the notice. I think that gives us a pretty clear idea of the sort of activity which a public spaces protection order is designed to cover.
	I consider it highly unlikely that, in the case of a peaceful protest, or holding placards or handing out literature, or talking to people, even the first condition could be met. I do not see that as being a condition which any court would allow.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: The noble Lord refers to “any court”. It is of course the local authority that will be making the judgment. The court would only be involved at a much later stage, if that was challenged. The Minister says that the second condition is that it has to be,
	“of a persistent or continuing nature”
	and “unreasonable”. It does not have to be. It has to be “likely to”: a judgment is being made as to whether or not the effect of the activities is “likely to” do something. That is a much weaker test than that which the noble Lord implied.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The noble Baroness has only referred to one part of the second condition; there are three tests within the second condition alone. With the extra requirements set out in the second condition, I am satisfied that we have provided sufficient safeguards to ensure that these orders cannot be used to prevent peaceful protests or free speech. It is also worth mentioning that local authorities and the courts—I am sorry to come back to the courts, but we rely on them to make sure that legislation is properly used—must exercise their obligations compatibly with Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which enshrine the rights to freedom of expression and association respectively. They are intrinsic in any matter concerning peaceful public protest or free speech.
	That is not to say that public order legislation will not continue to apply; it can still apply. My remarks should therefore not be taken as licence to include threatening or abusive words on a placard, or the bearer of the placard containing that sort of wording could be liable to arrest. There is overriding public order legislation, but the test on a public spaces protection order has to satisfy the notion that it is a behaviour
	which is persistent and continuing, is or is likely to be such as to make activities unreasonable and justifies the restrictions imposed by the notice. All three of those have to be part of the second condition, let alone the first. I hope that, with that reassurance, my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Greaves: I am grateful for that discussion. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, for her support. It is clearly a complicated matter. I will go away and look carefully at what the Minister has said. I suspect that I will not be completely satisfied but, nevertheless, perhaps looking forward to further discussions, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 34A withdrawn.
	Amendment 34B
	 Moved by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
	34B: Clause 55, page 32, line 38, leave out “consult”

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I can be brief with this group of government amendments which implement the recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in respect of certain of the delegated powers in Parts 1, 4 and 5 of the Bill. The amendments to Clauses 55, 56 and 57 are worthy of particular comment. The Delegated Powers Committee argued that, in relation to the public spaces protection orders, the current provisions in the Bill requiring a local authority to consult with the chief officer of police and community representatives was too narrow given the potential impact of such orders. The committee further argued that there should be a general duty to publicise the intention to make a notice. We are happy to accept the point made by the committee. The amendments to Clause 55 therefore require a local authority to publicise its intention to make an order so as to allow persons affected to make representations. In the normal way, a local authority would be bound to consider any such representations before making an order. This process is also replicated where the local authority plans to extend, vary or discharge an existing order by the amendments to Clauses 56 and 57 respectively. I beg to move.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: I was a bit slow on to my feet; I suspected that there may be other noble Lords wishing to speak on this.
	The noble Lord will recall that these are the amendments over which I last week raised our concerns about their being tabled late. The anticipation was that they would be debated the day after they were laid, so I am pleased that we have had a gap and welcome the opportunity to look at them more closely.
	The amendments to Clause 55 are in response, as the noble Lord has said, to recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The Government had tried to confer a wide-ranging and significant power on local authorities to control the ways in which public spaces are used without any requirement to publicise the public spaces protection order before it was made. We agree with the committee
	that that would have been inappropriate delegation of powers. I am pleased that the Government have tabled the amendment, which would require a local authority to publish the text of the proposed order, if I understand it correctly, or an extension in duration of an existing order, or any variation in a public spaces protection order. It adds clarity, which I welcome, but there are still concerns about the amended clause that will need to be addressed later in passage of the Bill.
	As the noble Lord said, government Amendments 56ADA and 56ADB on orders relating to the Housing Act—those on absolute grounds for possession of anti-social behaviour—and government Amendment 100 about the granting of injunctions will ensure that those elements are subject to the affirmative procedure. We have serious concerns about these proposals. The amendments at least provide for a greater degree of accountability of the legislative process and add greater scrutiny to these powers, which we find deeply flawed. There are loopholes and my noble friend Lord Rosser will be speaking to those in the course of today’s debate.
	I will give one example. Clause 4 specifies the bodies which are authorised to apply under Clause 1 for an injunction against a person to prevent them engaging in conduct capable of causing nuisance and annoyance. Subsection (5) of that clause will enable changes to be made to bodies and persons who are authorised to apply for an injunction under Clause 1, including making changes to the circumstances in which a body may make such an application. The Government’s view has been challenged, and I think they now accept this: it is not a general power to amend but is restricted to adding persons who may apply for an anti-social behaviour order under Section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
	The Delegated Powers Committee said that the Home Office’s explanation does not take account of the different nature of an anti-social behaviour order from an injunction under Clause 1, including the different tests to be applied in each case when determining an application. As a result, the Government have now tabled amendments whereby this would now rightly be subject to an affirmative procedure, which is much more appropriate.
	Government Amendments 56ADA and 56ADB relate to subsections (10) and (11) of Section 84A of the Housing Act 1985. One of the conditions that, if met, could be used to trigger repossession proceedings, is that the tenant,
	“or a person living in or”,
	even,
	“visiting the dwelling, has been convicted of a ‘serious offence’; and that offence was committed in the locality of the dwelling, against a person who lives in the locality, or against the landlord or a person employed in connection with the landlord’s housing management functions”.
	The Delegated Powers Committee stated that,
	“the scope of the power is not limited in any way, but simply allows the addition or removal of any indictable offence. In our view, this is a significant Henry VIII power, since the way in which it is exercised will have a direct effect on the circumstances in which a court will be required to order possession”.
	Therefore we certainly agree with the government amendment that it is more appropriate that these amendments subject this process to the affirmative
	procedure. Obviously, the repossession process can have a hugely detrimental impact on people’s lives, and as such, any such power introduced by the Government must be monitored closely. Noble Lords have to be aware that we have serious concerns about that policy. My noble friend Lord Rosser will speak about that in more depth when we come to our debate on Clauses 86 and 89 stand part.
	My key point on these government amendments is that while we think that they are more appropriate, agree with the comments made by the Delegated Powers Committee, and support specific amendments—we certainly will not oppose them—we still have concerns, even with that additional layer of scrutiny, that the proposals should be subject to greater scrutiny from your Lordships’ House. We shall speak to those later in the debate.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: I note what the noble Baroness has said and appreciate the support, albeit qualified, for the government amendments from the Benches opposite.
	Amendment 34B agreed.
	Amendment 34C
	 Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach
	34C: Clause 55, page 32, line 38, at end insert—
	“( ) publish the text of the proposed order;”
	Amendment 34C agreed.
	Amendment 35
	 Moved by Lord Greaves
	35: Clause 55, page 32, line 38, at end insert—
	“( ) the owner of any part of the public space that is not owned by the local authority;”

Lord Greaves: My Lords, in moving Amendment 35, I will speak to the other 14 amendments in this group as well. All but the last of these amendments, which was tagged on, are about the extent to which there should be consultation and advertising of public spaces protection orders before they are made and to what extent they should be publicised afterwards. What is in the Bill at the moment is pretty rudimentary.
	The amendment made by the Government in the last group improved matters a little. However, Clause 55(7) states:
	“A local authority making a public spaces protection order must before doing so consult the chief officer of police, and the local policing body, for the police area that includes the restricted area”.
	That is fair enough. Paragraph (b) states that it must consult,
	“whatever community representatives the local authority thinks it appropriate to consult”.
	That is either very broad or very narrow, but we will hear what the Minister has to say.
	In addition, the local authority has to publicise the proposal. The interesting question is, what does that now mean? Again, it could be done simply by putting a tiny advert in an obscure part of a not-very-widely-read
	newspaper, or by splashing it all over the place, on its website and everywhere else. The question is, will what local authorities are expected to do also be in the guidance? Would it not be better to have some basic proposals in the Bill—which is what my amendments try to ensure?
	The first six amendments are about making public spaces protection orders. The remainder, apart from the last one, raise the same questions in relation to extensions, variations and removals of orders—what the legislation calls “discharges”. As far as consultations are concerned, Amendment 35 says that the owner of the land must be consulted. The Minister may tell us, “Of course the owner of the land will be told what is going on”, but it does not say so in the Bill. Whether the owner of a particular piece of land is a community representative may be a question of doubt. The owner may live in Wellington, New Zealand, in Vladivostok, or anywhere. However, if orders will be made that restrict the activities that members of the public can undertake on a particular piece of land, the owner of the land should be consulted about that before the order is made.
	Amendment 36 probes what is meant by “community representatives”. Will the guidance tell us? The amendment would take that out, but only in order to probe what it means. Amendment 37 says that the county council—the highways authority in two-tier areas—should be consulted as one of the main local authorities. The county will think that it is the major local authority. The district may disagree, but nevertheless, the county council clearly should be consulted, particularly if the public spaces protection order affects a highway. The county is the highways authority—it is responsible for that highway—and it may well have a view as to whether activities should be restricted or whether people should be banned from going on that highway, if it is a right of way. The amendment also says that parish councils should be consulted.
	I have put down amendment after amendment about parish councils and I sometimes think that the people who write legislation in central London—in Westminster and Whitehall—do not have much experience of them. I know that the Minister has huge experience of parish councils, because he lives in a part of the world in Lincolnshire that is rife with them, and quite rightly so. People may say, “Some parish councils are rubbish”, but some are brilliant. When it comes to dealing with things such as local environmental crime on a small but irritating level, or with anti-social behaviour, parish councils have an essential role to play. They are at the heart of communities and can help to stop it happening.
	I propose simply that if a public spaces protection order is being made on land within a parish, surely that parish council should be consulted. The Minister may say, “Yes, the parish council is certainly the community representative, and will therefore be consulted”. I would like at the very least the assurance that that will be in the guidance. Unfortunately some district councils do not like parish councils, not even their own, and go out of their way to keep them out of things.
	Amendment 38, which is quite complicated, sets out rules for advertising the proposal, making copies available, and considering representations and objections.
	It also says that the decision should be made in public, because some of those decisions will be very controversial, and they should not simply be made by a delegated authority to an officer or to a cabinet member who makes the decision without having to justify it to people who wish to support it or protest against it. Amendment 39 says that once a public spaces protection order has been made it has to be published and should be open to inspection. The Minister may tell me, “Of course that will happen—it will be in the guidance”. I look forward to that.
	Finally, Amendment 56ZC covers a rather different area. It is an amendment which probes what the term “community representative” means, and whether it can mean a regional or national body that is perhaps called in by local people for some expertise. Again, I think, for example, of the Ramblers or the Open Spaces Society, which might be brought in if there is a proposal to close a right of way by a public spaces protection order. If the normal procedures for closing rights of way were to be carried through, through the highways legislation or the Wildlife and Countryside Act, that would happen automatically.
	The danger is that this legislation may provide a shortcut that local authorities will find very attractive. I am not sure that “shortcut” is the right word; it should aim to close a shortcut which may be highly controversial. One ought to be able to bring in experts in the field. Nowadays, it is not difficult to consult organisations. In the old days, you had to print off another copy of a letter, put it in an envelope, put a stamp on it and post it off. Nowadays, you do not do that; you just have an easy distribution list on your computer and you send it off to everybody, so there is no excuse for limiting and restricting the number of people who should be consulted and should be able to make representations. I sit on a local committee which deals with rights of way questions. Usually, the people who make representations to us are local people. If it is the Ramblers Association, it is a local branch of that association. However, sometimes the issue is more controversial and difficult, and national organisations get involved. These national organisations may be heritage organisations or amenity organisations. All sorts of organisations get involved on behalf of local people who have asked them to do so. Excluding them, which is what this section of the Bill seems to do, is ridiculous. I look forward to the Minister’s response, as ever. I beg to move Amendment 35.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I support my noble friend, especially on Amendments 38 and 56ZC. I raise the vexed issue of dogs and am happy that my first interjection on the Bill concerns that issue—indeed, I have been looking forward to it—in the context of public spaces protection orders. I think that many local authorities will consider introducing such orders to ban bull breeds of dogs from green spaces. Many people may support such a measure but an animal welfare issue is involved. If local authorities decide to ban a specific breed of dog, who will enforce it and where will those dogs be walked? Making such orders would be popular and therefore many local communities may suggest that they be implemented across the whole of their area, which would cause an animal
	welfare issue, especially for those responsible dog owners who look after their pets. Indeed, evidence shows that Staffordshire bull terriers are safe dogs if handled properly. However, many of the problems associated with status dogs arise because people do not understand how to look after them and do not train them properly. Blanket orders banning such dogs from green spaces could be very popular but would cause many problems. Many animal welfare charities are overrun with bull breeds of dogs that have been abandoned and the measure we are discussing would exacerbate that problem. The amendment would ensure consultation around such enforcement. I think that enforcement of breed-specific measures would be a mistake. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was drawn up in haste and tried to ban pit bull terriers. However, there are now more pit bull terriers in the country than when the Act was introduced, so it did not work. In addition, it is a very difficult law to enforce.
	I understand that muzzling or keeping dogs on leads at certain times could be a solution to this problem in certain areas but a blanket ban would be a problem. Will this issue be dealt with in the guidance that will be brought forward? If that is not the case, who will make representations on behalf of these dog breeds? Amendment 38 refers to representations. I hope that national bodies will be consulted in areas where dog wardens do not exist following financial cuts. I very much hope that the Minister will advise that blanket bans cannot be imposed in this regard unless the animal welfare issues are fully discussed.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I want to interrupt this string of Liberal Democrat speakers to correct the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. He implied that the reason why parish councils were not referred to more explicitly in the Bill is that so many officials live in London and London does not have parish councils. However, London has the power to create parish councils. Indeed, last year a parish council was created in Queen’s Park following a referendum of local residents who voted for it by two to one, with about 1,000 residents voting in favour and about 500 voting against. Therefore, it is possible to create parishes in London and many local authorities have looked at this as a way of ensuring adequate local community and neighbourhood representation. Where such parishes or adequate community and neighbourhood structures exist, you would expect them to be consulted on the orders about which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is concerned.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his amendments in this group. I am happy to say that I believe there is merit in a number of his suggestions. I hope that he will be pleased by my response to his amendments.
	Amendments 35, 45 and 50 would see the landowner consulted, if this is not the council—the council could, of course, be the landowner—before a public spaces protection order is made. I accept that it is entirely appropriate that the council should take reasonable steps to consult either the landowner or occupier of any land to be covered by a public spaces protection
	order. It is conceivable that this could be done through a relevant community representative under Clause 55(7)(b), but I acknowledge that the owner or occupier is in rather a different position and should be consulted directly where they can be identified. Likewise, Amendments 37, 47 and 52 would add parish councils, county councils and community councils to the list of bodies to be consulted where appropriate. Again, I accept that there is a case for having these bodies on the face of the legislation for the avoidance of doubt, and I would like to consider this matter further between now and Report. The viability of parish councils can vary enormously. I come from one of the largest parishes in England. Holbeach has a population of not far off 10,000 people and has its own resources, including a park and sports areas, so it is a considerable body in its own right.
	Amendments 38, 49 and 53 would make provisions for prior public consultation where an authority wishes to issue, vary or extend an order. These go into more detail than the requirement to consult,
	“whatever community representatives the local authority thinks … appropriate”.
	As my noble friend Lord Ahmad said on the previous group of amendments, we have considered the points made by the Delegated Powers Committee about publicising orders and accept that such a requirement should be written into the Bill. Our amendments will require orders to be publicised before they are made, extended, varied or discharged. I hope my noble friend will accept that the government amendments achieve the substance of his Amendments 38, 49 and 53. It follows that having publicised its intention to make an order, a council is duty bound to consider any representations it receives in response to such a notification. We do not need to provide for this on the face of the Bill.
	If I understand my noble friend’s scheme correctly, Amendments 36, 46 and 51 are consequential upon Amendments 38, 49 and 53. These amendments would remove the more generic reference to consulting “community representatives”. However, I still see merit in leaving reference to community representatives, which could include residents’ associations or other local, or indeed national, bodies.
	This brings me on to Amendment 56ZC, which seeks to remove any doubt as to whether a national body falls within the category of community representative. While I believe that the Bill already covers the situations that my noble friend envisages, this additional clarity would be helpful and I would like to assure my noble friend that I will consider it.
	I am also sympathetic to the sentiment behind Amendments 39 and 40, which relate to publicising an order once it has been made. Amendment 39 would specify that when an order is publicised this should include putting it on the local authority’s website. It was always our intention to keep the regulations light touch to ensure maximum flexibility at a local level. However, I suggest that in order to future-proof the legislation we avoid referencing websites specifically in the Bill so that if more appropriate media are developed in 10 years we do not require primary legislation. But
	we can certainly make clear in the regulations that the council should publish the order, at the very least, on its website.
	Similarly, Amendment 40 seems to set a reasonable expectation that once an order is in place it will be available for inspection. Indeed, we would expect this to be best practice, although perhaps publishing the order on the website might make it more widely accessible than making it available at the council’s offices, as the amendment proposes. The point is well made but this matter is best addressed in guidance.
	My noble friend Lord Redesdale opened up a tricky issue in an almost pre-emptive strike on our debates on dogs, if I may say so. However, quite a number of aspects of this matter are covered in the draft Home Office guidance on controlling the presence of dogs. When deciding whether to make requirements or restrictions on dogs and their owners, local councils will need to consider whether there are suitable alternatives for dogs to be exercised without restrictions. Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, dog owners are required to provide for the welfare needs of their animals. This includes providing the necessary amount of exercise each day. Councils should be aware of the publicly accessible parks and other public places in their area that dog walkers can use to exercise their dogs without restrictions. I therefore hope that my noble friend is reassured about that, although he should also understand that we need to keep the public safe from dogs that are out of control. We will no doubt be discussing that delicate balance when we reach the dog provisions in the Bill.
	I hope that I have been able to reassure my noble friend Lord Greaves on at least a number of the points he has raised through these amendments. I hope he will accept that the government amendments to Clauses 55 to 57 go some considerable way to addressing his concerns. I have also said that I will take away Amendments 35, 37, 45, 47, 50, 52 and 56ZC and consider them further in advance of Report. I make no commitment to bringing forward government amendments at that stage but will certainly reflect very carefully on the points he has made. With that commitment, I ask my noble friend not to press his amendments.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I am a little overwhelmed by this stream of ministerial reasonableness, having spent most of the past 13 years in your Lordships’ House moving amendments and being met by the stubbornness of, “We must defend our Bill at all costs”. Seriously, I am grateful for what the Minister has said and, in the hope that we will get a good mix of government amendments and assurances about what will clearly and firmly be in the guidance, I am delighted to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 35 withdrawn.
	Amendment 35A
	 Moved by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
	35A: Clause 55, page 32, line 39, at beginning insert “consult”
	Amendment 35A agreed.
	Amendment 36 not moved.
	Amendment 36A
	 Moved by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
	36A: Clause 55, page 32, line 41, at beginning insert “consult”
	Amendment 36A agreed.
	Amendments 37 to 40 not moved.
	Amendment 41
	 Moved by Lord Greaves
	41: Clause 55, page 33, line 6, at end insert—
	“( ) A public spaces protection order may not be made in respect of land which—
	(a) appears on a register of commons and of town and village greens maintained by a Commons Registration Authority,
	(b) is access land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000,
	(c) is a footpath, bridleway, restricted byway or byway open to all traffic which appears on a definitive map of rights of way, or
	(d) is a cycle path or other way designed for pedestrians or vehicles used by disabled persons which is financed or maintained by a public authority, or which was authorised or required by a planning permission.”

Lord Greaves: My Lords, this is the last group of amendments that I shall move or speak to. After that there will be just a few bullet points and I therefore hope that the Committee will bear with me a little because this is a long and complex group, in which my noble friend Lady Hamwee also has an amendment.
	All these amendments are about the types of land where rights of access are provided by legislation, often with an actual or implied right to take part in formal recreation while accessing the land. There are two kinds of such land. The first is areas of land that include commons, village and town greens, and access land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which includes the new coastal access routes and the spreading room between those routes and the sea. I remember that the person who led on the CROW Bill for the Liberal Democrats was my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. Some of the amendments she moved attempted to place an obligation on councils to publicise areas of access land on their websites. We were told by the Government of the day that that was inappropriate because websites were new and unknown, most councils might not have them, and that they were therefore inappropriate. Now we are told by the current Minister that websites may not be around for very long and are therefore ephemeral. Such is the passage of time. The second type of land is highways, routes, rights of way and other important recreational routes. Some of the amendments in the group cover both types of land but, rather than going through the amendments in detail, I shall take each type in turn.
	The first two paragraphs of Amendment 41 state:
	“A public spaces protection order may not be made in respect of land which—
	(a) appears on a register of commons and of town and village greens”,
	or,
	“(b) is access land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000”.
	Commons and greens are special places, the rights of access to which are contained in historic law, some of it common law, and in the CROW Act and Commons Act 2006. The CROW Act provides a right to roam on all commons. Village greens and town greens are specifically designated as areas where informal recreation has taken place without permission or hindrance for at least 20 years, and in some cases for centuries. The right to informal recreation on greens is basic to their existence. Restricting such access and activities by the relatively easy administrative process under public spaces protection orders is, frankly, not acceptable. It is possible to have restrictions on greens but such restrictions are carefully worked out and laid down, and difficult to achieve. Commons are also historic and the right of public access is entrenched in the Acts. Often access to and the presence of a common are common law rights, by which I mean common law, not the Commons Act. Again, it is quite unacceptable that these ancient rights can be overturned and that there is only one difficult right of appeal to the High Court.
	Amendment 41A concerns something quite different. It is about rights of common, although I do not want to go into great detail on those or we may be here all night. A common typically has an owner, which may be a public authority or a private owner. It also has commoners who are attached to the common, and they have rights of common. Nowadays, it is mainly a grazing right, but there may be ancient rights such as pannage and turbary, which noble Lords can look up in the dictionary. These rights of common belong to the commoners and are quite separate from the rights of ownership of the owner of the common. It would be absurd if these rights, which are laid down, could be overturned by the relatively straightforward administrative procedure of setting up a public spaces protection order, and that ought to be made quite clear.
	Highways which are of real concern here are the rights of way on a definitive map. Several of these amendments are not consistent with each other because they put forward alternative ways of providing safeguards or simply take them out of the legislation altogether. I hope that the Government will start looking at the safeguards. These rights of way as defined under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 are public footpaths, bridleways, the slightly more esoteric restricted byways, and BOATs—byways open to all traffic. The legislative regime is clear. It has been in place for a long time under the Highways Acts and, now, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It is possible to close or divert rights of way. Closures and diversions happen all the time, but doing so is complex and the procedures are quite long, and that is deliberate because these are ancient historic rights that ought not to be able to be taken away easily and quickly. As I said earlier, I am on a committee that deals with them. You can appeal if a right of way is closed or diverted and the local
	authority has not achieved an adequate consensus, and the appeal is made to the magistrates’ court; you do not have to go galloping off to the High Court, which most people would find impossible. However, there is a fear that some councils will use public spaces protection orders to close such routes.
	I have mentioned other sorts of routes which are often found in urban areas—cycleways and paths provided for disabled people. They usually have no statutory protection as such, and in these cases you probably have to rely on the good sense of the local authority. However, I have put them on the table as being a possible problem when local authorities do not behave sensibly.
	I want briefly, or perhaps not so briefly, to refer to gating orders. These were introduced in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. They never got a proper scrubbing down in scrutiny terms in your Lordships’ House because that Act went into the wash-up at the end of the Parliament and we did not get to discuss them as we might have done. However, they have been relatively successful in most of the cases where they have been brought in. Some 1,700 gating orders have been made. A gating order simply puts gates on the end of a highway—usually a local back street—so that people cannot access it. There is a procedure under the Highways Act 1980, as amended by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act, for making gating orders, and this Bill subsumes gating orders under public spaces protection orders.
	Most gating orders have been uncontroversial. They provide an improvement to community safety and the local environment. They stop people going down the backs of houses when they can perfectly easily go down the front, so no inconvenience is caused. They typically relate to back streets, alleys, snickets or ginnels, depending on where you live. However, some have been very controversial where local authorities have used them in inappropriate circumstances to close down footpaths linking one place to another and there are no satisfactory alternatives. Examples are where routes within urban areas link a main road and a school, a housing estate and playing fields, or routes to shopping centres and so on. There have also been one or two examples where the gating of a local highway in a town has blocked access to the rights of way network in the countryside, and that has clearly been undesirable.
	I am not arguing against being able to use public spaces protection orders for gating purposes because that is how the Government now want to proceed. I am asking the Minister whether we can have some really good, genuine safeguards to ensure that they will be used only for those very local circumstances where the purpose is to keep people away from residential property and not to stop people using linking routes—usually footpaths—which are of value to the community. As it stands on rights of way, the Bill removes the basic safeguards in the Highways Act. At the very best, it shifts the balance to enable the easy closure of a right of way for three years, then for it to be extended three years at a time, and eventually for ever. Real problems are involved in conflating gating orders with all rights of way. I am sure that there are ways
	around that by which everybody’s objectives can be reached, and I ask the Minister to treat this seriously and to have further discussions about it. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I have Amendment 53FA in this group. It is an amendment to Clause 60, dealing with restricting the right of way over a highway. I am suggesting that in subsection (4), which provides:
	“A public spaces protection order may not restrict the public right of way over a highway for the occupiers of premises”,
	we should also refer to “users” of premises,
	“adjoining or adjacent to the highway”.
	This is a probing amendment to ask whether the term “occupiers” includes people authorised by the occupier. Obviously this would apply to all premises, but it was thinking about business premises that made me decide that this needed to be made clear, because restricting in effect the use of business premises would be a serious matter.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Greaves and Lady Hamwee for explaining their amendments. Before I start on my notes, I should draw my noble friends’ attention to the underlying conditions that local authorities need to reflect on before they make orders. I think that they condition the whole approach and, to some extent, satisfy some of the anxieties that my noble friends have expressed.
	I can assure my noble friend Lord Greaves that, like him, I fervently believe that public spaces are there for everyone to enjoy, but they should not be ruined by a careless and irresponsible minority. These new orders are designed to allow maximum flexibility for the council, meaning that restrictions on access to, or use of, any land should be considered only as a last resort. However, where restrictions on access are necessary, the option should be available to protect victims and communities from anti-social behaviour. That is what we are about and it is what the Bill is about.
	On Amendment 41, I accept that the categories of land listed are important and, indeed, worthy of the further debate they have received today. This is exactly why many of them are covered explicitly in the draft guidance. However, making this amendment would stop the local council protecting those spaces more generally from issues that might deter usage. It is important that we do not inhibit the flexibility provided by these new orders.
	Perhaps I may illustrate the point. Many of the categories of land listed here are commonly used by dog walkers as well as children. Given the risk to children of diseases spread by dog faeces, it is only right that a council has the ability to introduce measures to ensure that dog owners clean up after their animal. In addition, where some of these areas of land have become a focal point for people to congregate and drink alcohol, making usage by others unpleasant or even impossible, the council should be able to prohibit the drinking of alcohol to free the space for the majority who want to use it responsibly. The amendment as drafted would preclude the council providing these protections or any others that were necessary on the categories of land listed.
	Amendment 41A is more specific and is designed to protect any rights of common, such as the right to graze animals, enjoyed by individuals or groups on common land. This amendment is, I believe, unnecessary. A public spaces protection order would not be used to stop a commoner exercising his right of common. In the case of rights of common, it is hard to imagine a situation where a right exercised by a commoner could result in anti-social behaviour, unless it were being done in a particular way. The new flexibility afforded to councils with the public spaces protection order means they can address the problem element of the behaviour while protecting the wider rights.
	Amendment 54 would ensure that certain categories of land could not have access restricted. First, let me say that I accept the importance of maintaining access to footpaths, bridleways and byways so that they are available for the enjoyment of all. However, the list in Clause 61 relates to those highways that are of strategic value. This means that, in all probability, restricting access would have a significant impact on the community, if not the region or the country, that far outweighs the impact of any problem behaviours. I do not feel that the same can be said for all public rights of way. However, I agree that they deserve special consideration and I am happy to see how this can be made clearer in the guidance, but where the anti-social behaviour—and it is the anti-social behaviour that we are dealing with, not access—of those using these routes has reached a stage where the community is suffering, the council should have the ability to restrict access either in part or in totality.
	I would like to make one more point which I hope my noble friend will appreciate. Due to the way in which the current orders in this area are framed, in many cases a gating order, and indeed the complete closure of a right of way, is the only option available to councils. The new order seeks to change this. Problem behaviours and anti-social individuals and groups can be dealt with more effectively under the new power, ensuring that the restriction of access is necessary only as a last resort. We have made this clear in the guidance, but I am content to work with interested groups such as the Open Spaces Society and the Ramblers, to see whether it can be made any more explicit.
	The other amendments my noble friend Lord Greaves has in this group relate to restrictions on rights of way over a highway and appropriate safeguards. Amendment 53B seeks to provide further safeguards on the list of things that need to be considered before the right of way over a highway is restricted. I believe that as currently worded Clause 60 provides those assurances. However, we can consider how to go into more detail in the accompanying guidance to ensure that my noble friend’s concerns are addressed.
	Amendment 53D would mean that all those affected would have to be notified in writing. In most cases, I think this would probably be correct. However, it may be that for some orders another medium would be more appropriate, such as speaking individually to those affected if there is only a small number. As such, I do not believe we should tie the hands of councils in this way in the Bill.
	I am also sympathetic to the intention behind Amendment 53E. When restricting access to a highway, the council will have to publicise it properly. It seems sensible that a sign at either end of the footpath would be the way in which this is done. Likewise, as we have already discussed, many councils will advertise these restrictions on their websites and through a number of different channels. However, I believe this is something that we can cover more effectively in the guidance and I do not believe it should be in the Bill as it could place an unnecessary burden on councils where those channels are not appropriate.
	Again, I agree with the intention behind Amendment 53F, which I believe would be best practice anyway. Taxpayers would expect their local agencies, as public bodies, to be working together to address problems and sharing information of this type should be the norm. I do not believe that it needs to be in the Bill but, again, I am happy to further clarify this in guidance.
	I hope I can also provide some assurances on Amendment 53FA, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. The legislation makes clear that when a public right of way is restricted over a highway, those who occupy premises on that highway cannot be precluded from accessing it. This is perfectly right, but my noble friend suggests that “users” of those premises should be included. I sympathise with the sentiment, but I fear that such a definition could open the exception out too far and make it difficult for local authorities to protect communities. However, I would remind my noble friend that, as I said at the beginning, in order to make a public spaces protection order the local authority has reasonably to believe that the behaviour justifies the restrictions. Restricting access to a highway is a significant step and, as such, the conduct it is weighed up against is also likely to be more serious. I believe that councils will use the most restrictive elements of this power only when the behaviour is such that it warrants the restrictions. We are back to the principles which are enshrined in Clause 55.
	In conclusion, we will look at how we can take account in our guidance of a number of the points that have been raised in these amendments. In preparing the final guidance, we will continue to work with interested parties such as the Open Spaces Society. With those assurances, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I am grateful for some of that, I think. I am less overwhelmed than I was on the previous group of amendments, but there are some issues there to latch on to and have further discussions and debates about. The Minister has several times today made the point that public spaces protection orders are more flexible than, for example, gating orders or some of the other things they may replace, and it is a good point. Local authorities will find useful the ability to place sensible rules on the use of a right of way that might, for example, go near houses. From that point of view, the flexibility in the orders is a good thing. The problem is that the bottom line is that access can be stopped by quick, quite easy administrative procedures which can be appealed in
	the High Court only. That drives a coach and horses—that is the wrong image for footpaths—through the existing Highways Act legislation, which provides the opportunity to close a public footpath, but makes it much more difficult. There are many more hoops to go through. Those hoops are therefore very good reasons. Perhaps the Minister might consider a two-stage process for public protection orders, making it clear to local authorities that they cannot just go straight to closing access if they have not tried these other more flexible means instead.
	In practice, once you have banned people from going on a village green, you have lost. Whoever is doing it, they have lost. If there is anti-social behaviour on a village green, it must be tackled as anti-social behaviour to stop it. It is not a sensible answer to it to say that nobody can go on to a village or town green or access land because a minority are ruining it by “careless and irresponsible activity”, to quote the Minister. We all agree that careless and irresponsible activity has to be stopped when it is causing a nuisance, but the problem is the knock-on effect of preventing everybody else using historic facilities. They are not being careless but are being perfectly responsible. Keeping them off because a minority are hooligans is the wrong approach. If there is a minority of hooligans, we have to tackle that minority.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: It would pay my noble friend to read Clause 55 to see that it is targeted at behaviour, not space. I recognise exactly his concerns—the anti-social activity is targeted in the order. Subsection (8) states that the order must,
	“identify the activities … explain the effect … specify the period for which the order has effect”.
	I hope that my noble friend will study this because a lot of his anxieties are taken care of not just in guidance but in the Bill.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, that is true, but I shall finish where I started on public spaces protection orders. They are different from the other orders because, although they are based on people’s behaviour, the order goes not on the people but on the land. Because it goes on the land it affects everybody. That is the difference and why we have to be very careful.
	I was going to read out some of the draft guidance that has been produced so far but I thought that your Lordships would probably not want to hear. It is pretty weak—it is considering, thinking about and then getting on with it. The guidance—if that is what we are to rely on—will have to beefed up very considerably. On that basis, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 41 withdrawn.
	Amendment 41A not moved.
	Clause 55, as amended, agreed.
	Clause 56: Duration of orders
	Amendment 41B
	 Moved by Baroness Hamwee
	41B: Clause 56, page 33, line 9, leave out “3 years” and insert “1 year”

Baroness Hamwee: In moving Amendment 41B, I will speak to Amendments 44A, 44B, 49A and 55A. The amendments take us to Clause 56, dealing with the duration of public spaces protection orders. I entirely take the point that Clause 55 is targeted at activities, but I also take my noble friend’s point that such an order affects everyone. After all, the title of the order is about protecting space, even though the language of the Bill is about the quality of life of the people who may be affected.
	The orders may last for up to three years with, I understand, an unlimited number of extensions. The Minister said that he shares the view that public space should be for everyone to enjoy. I take a more urban view than that of my noble friend Lord Greaves. Where space is very scarce in an urban environment it is important not to restrict it. I am aware that one can argue this both ways: one can also say that it is important to ensure that activities do not take place that mean that it is not enjoyable for everyone. It is not just an urban or even suburban or rural issue.
	My amendments would provide for the duration to be no more than a year with a single extension, and for there to be no new order dealing with substantially the same space until the expiry of a year—a sort of anti-avoidance provision. For all the reasons already discussed, I would be very concerned about having something that becomes permanent or semi-permanent, but I have a more practical concern as well—it is in part philosophical. My practical concern is: if the order is to stop undesirable activities, whatever they may be, taking place on a particular space, how does one assess that the threat has passed? If the order goes on and on, the culture, local habits and so on of the area may have changed necessarily, and we will never know whether we have been successful, as we should have been in that we have prohibited an activity, or whether we have actually changed behaviour.
	Also, if an order goes on and on, it is difficult to see how it can be challenged in the wide, democratic sense. Clause 62 is about challenging validity, but that is different. However, I have Amendment 55A—a pretty ropey amendment, I am afraid, but it would allow some sort of challenge. It is not a good amendment because the clause is about validity, but it will enable me to raise the issue with the Minister on how one challenges such orders. I beg to move.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I have one amendment in this group, which covers very much the same ground as covered by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, so I shall not pursue it further. I merely support everything my noble friend said.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I understand the nature of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in terms of restricting the length of time of a public spaces protection order, but I believe that the proposals go in the wrong direction. I wonder why there is an automatic process of the orders essentially expiring after a period of three years. The power to make orders sets a whole series of conditions for how the process is to be done. It requires extensive consultation, the nature of which we have discussed already. I am
	assuming that the orders are made in the context of consensus having been reached in a community that that is the way forward. If such a consensus has been reached, why do we have to go through this process regularly? It would be on an annual basis if the amendment moved by the noble Baroness is passed. Surely the point of the Government’s proposal is that a local authority will apply for the orders on the basis of having consulted widely, including with the chief officer of police and all the others specified in the order. That would include consultation with the local community. If the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, had his way, there would be explicit reference to the importance of parish councils, and I would certainly not object to that. So there we have a community consensus around the protection of public spaces in the area, and then it is said that the order should not have effect for a period of more than three years.
	There is then a process of extension and, essentially, as I understand it, the extension could be for one term only and therefore would lapse after six years. I may be wrong about that. The harrumphing from the ministerial Bench suggests that I may have got this wrong and I shall be delighted if that is the case. However, it would therefore mean that a process would have to be gone through every three years and, if the noble Baroness’s amendment was passed, that process would have to be gone through every single year. There may well be circumstances in which people want these public places protection orders in place. In that is the case, why is it necessary to go through this process?
	It may be that the Minister will say that opinions may change and things may happen, but local authorities are, in essence, democratic. They are elected on a cycle, usually every four years—or refreshed every four years—so if the local perceptions change and these public spaces protection orders no longer have the support of local communities, that will be reflected in the nature of the local councillors for the area and it will therefore be up to the local council to decide whether it wants to rescind the order or change the order and make it different.
	I wonder about these time limits which, to me, seem potentially too restrictive. To make them even more restrictive, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggests, would be detrimental to the objectives that the Minister is no doubt seeking for these powers.

Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, I share the puzzlement of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about the provision in Clause 56, particularly as all the flexibility needed is covered in Clause 57. There is a power to discharge, which would no doubt be exercised when the local community is satisfied that the order is no longer needed, and there is a valuable power to vary the order so that it could be extended to more people or its scope reduced if that is shown to be necessary. Flexibility is key and I would have thought that one could get by perfectly well with Clause 57 without having Clause 56 there at all.

Lord Faulks: My Lords, I respectfully agree with what the noble and learned Lord has just said. The only way in which Clause 56 might be amended to
	satisfy the anxiety is to make it a relatively simple procedure. At the moment, subsection (5) requires that the local authority must consult various people. If the local authority was given an opportunity so that it “may” consult rather than “must” consult, it would make the extension a relatively informal procedure. Otherwise, I entirely accept what the noble and learned Lord says: Clause 56 is over elaborate in view of the existence of Clause 57.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, there are two problems here. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is partly right and partly wrong because it depends on what kind of public spaces protection order is being made. If the public spaces protection order is made to prevent dogs going into a children’s play area—the example given earlier by the Minister—there is no reason why that should require a formal procedure to consult and so on every three years because once dogs are banned from a children’s area they will be banned for ever. It may be controversial at first but, once it has been done, no one will complain about it afterwards. If, on the other hand, you are using it as a quick, easy procedure to close a right of way instead of going through the proper closure procedure under the Highways Act, it certainly should be reviewed. My noble friend and I are saying that it should be reviewed within a year or within six months if it concerns a right of way.
	This is because of the nature of the right that you are taking away from people who are not guilty of any offences. You are reducing the liberties of perfectly innocent citizens, and the nature of that reduction ought to be subject to reconsideration. How can you differentiate in the Bill between the routine orders that no one is going to complain about—orders that would otherwise be in the local playground by-laws or other rules and regulations—and serious orders that take away people’s historic rights of access to particular areas? I would be happy with a provision that the prevention of access would have to be reviewed if the public spaces protection order involved the removal of people’s rights to access land that they would otherwise have access to. This would apply to any access, whether or not it was to a common or a green or whatever. That is fairly fundamental and would have to be reviewed.
	As to the lesser protections that the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to as not having to be reviewed, there is a way through that if it can be written into the Bill.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I can see the distinction the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, draws between disruption of an historic right of way and preventing dogs fouling a children’s play area, but I am not sure how you would get around the problem that, essentially, you are saying to a dog owner, “You do not have access to this area”, or, “You do not have access to the area if you are with your dog”. That is also a restriction on rights of access to a particular area—in that case, a children’s playground. I can see what the noble Lord is trying to get at but the solution he is now proposing—admittedly it is not in an amendment before us—would be very difficult.
	We come back to the quality of the consultation in the first place. If there has been a proper consultation and there is a general community view that this restriction on people’s access to a particular area is appropriate, surely that is what you go with rather than this constant process of renewal for what may be very limited sets of circumstances.

Lord Greaves: I do not think it is as difficult as that. I think it is quite easy. There are plenty of parks nowadays with by-laws that say you cannot take your dog into the park or you have to have it on a lead or whatever. These proposals will make that kind of rule much easier.
	It would be possible to look at the question of whether the access itself was fundamentally different from many other things. On the other hand, having thought about that, do you really want an annual or three-yearly review of ordinary gating orders in back streets which are completely non-controversial? I am sure it is possible to think of a way through this and to find a solution.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. I have tabled a clause stand part debate because I feel it is a better way of probing the intentions and contradictions in this clause than individual amendments trying to make sense of it. In many ways, the debate we have had has identified some of the contradictions.
	These public spaces protection orders will replace three other orders which were specific to certain circumstances—the designated public place order, the gating order and the dog control order. Noble Lords are right, these orders can last for a maximum of three years and can then be renewed and renewed ad infinitum. There is no time limit or renewal limit in the legislation. The debate has highlighted those contradictions and it would be helpful if the noble Lord could reassure us on some issues. I am not sure that he will be able to.
	I am unclear why the Government are making changes in this way and whether all the implications of doing so have been considered. The debate we have had so far might indicate that they have not. The exchange between the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Greaves, indicates that the Government are confused, possibly because they are talking about slightly different things. We are replacing different orders, which deal with different complaints, with a single order that is trying to deal with all the complaints. Those original orders were of necessity very specific about the remedy they were trying to bring forward, whereas we are now moving to a more general order. I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, made the same point—that it is going to be very difficult to bring in one order to address all the different complaints.
	The dog control order is being abolished and replaced with the public spaces protection order. We are yet to have the debate about whether that is adequate to deal with the problems of dangerous dogs, but Battersea Dogs and Cats Home is very concerned about this as it is worried that local authorities will have to extend the powers after three years. Not only will that create a kind of hiatus at some point but it could create an administrative burden at a crucial time when resources
	are being cut. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, made this very point and asked why, if something has been agreed and consulted on, it is necessary to have ongoing reviews and renewals. It could mean less protection if, for example, a local authority fails to renew or gets caught up in some bureaucracy and the renewal does not happen or is delayed.
	I think I am correct in saying that there are no limits but it would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, could give an indication of what the average number of renewals will be and how often the Government expect an order to be renewed. I wonder if the Minister understands the concerns that this could be a significant burden on local authorities, which will feel that they have to renew every three years. I looked through the impact assessment to try to find out whether that issue had been looked at, but it had not been specifically addressed. I thought it rather bizarre, given that orders can be renewed and renewed ad infinitum, that the impact assessment refers only to,
	“providing councils with a flexible power to put in place local restrictions to address a range of ASB issues in public places, and prevent future problems. This would be different to the current situation as one order would be able to cover a number of issues, rather than needing to follow separate processes for each—reducing bureaucracy and cost for local authorities”.
	Representations made to us, however, say that it will increase bureaucracy; that instead of having one order that lasts for the time required, it will have to be renewed beforehand.
	There is also concern that in some cases a local authority may go for the maximum time, although it may not need it, because it would be overly burdensome and cumbersome to renew the order. It may think, “We need this to be in place for a year, but rather than having to renew it we will put it in place for three years and just let it lapse and not enforce it if it is not needed for the full three years”. Those are issues of concern. Then there is the other side of the coin. The Ramblers, for example, has other concerns, saying that a maximum of three years,
	“is too long a period for the closure of any route of which everyday use is being made”.
	I have read through the Explanatory Notes, the impact assessment and the Bill but cannot really understand why the period of three years was chosen. It is quite a lengthy maximum period to cover all the circumstances. What evidence did the Government use and what assessments were made that identified three years as the appropriate time for public spaces protection orders?
	Similarly, there is a real danger in trying to address different problems in the same way. Gating orders, for example, are very clear—they do what they say on the tin. I am always very happy to admit that nothing is perfect and make changes to make something more effective, if things can be improved. However, I am not convinced that putting all three of these orders together into one less specific, and therefore weaker, general order is the right way forward.
	The Minister and other noble Lords will have received letters about this from naturists who are concerned that it will impact on their activities. One of their
	concerns is the definition of what constitutes a public open space, which seems to rely on quite a wide description. Can the Minister offer any reassurance on that point?
	I have already addressed the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but it would be helpful if the Minister could identify how many times he thinks it would be appropriate for an order to be renewed. Has any assessment been made of the costs? The impact assessment says that, because they are not separate processes, it will reduce the cost to local authorities. On what evidence was that comment made? Can he say anything about enforcement? If something is in place in every instance for at least three years, and then renewed, will there be any checks and balances in terms of appropriateness and enforcement?
	When I raised this issue in respect of dispersal orders, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, was unable to answer. I want to try again because I feel very strongly. I am sure that we will also return to it for dispersal orders. Any new order that is introduced has to be evidence-based. I am sure—or I hope—that the noble Lord would agree with that. Can he explain where the demand is coming from which says that the public spaces protection order is the appropriate way to proceed instead of the three existing orders, and that that is the only option available for improving or changing those orders? This is another example of where the Government, in trying to streamline or rationalise orders, have let things drop and not identified all the problems and all the issues, such that we could well find ourselves in a weaker position in dealing with these issues. I hope the noble Lord can reassure me that that is not the case. On the present evidence, however, I am worried that effectiveness will be lost by trying to squeeze three orders into one solution.

Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, I will just add a supplement to my addendum to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on the flexibility that lies within the clauses as they stand. Clause 55(8)(c) creates a power to specify the period; so, with great respect to the noble Baroness, it is not a fixture that it will always be three years. If one takes that flexibility along with the point that I made earlier about Clause 57, a lot of flexibility is built into this. It is a very sensitive and well designed measure, subject to the point about whether Clause 56 should be there at all.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: As a point of clarification, I am fully aware that it is not three years in every case—it is up to three years. However, one of my concerns is that, because of the cost of renewal and the uncertainties around that, a number of local authorities may think that three years has become the default. It will be easier for them to run to the maximum of three years rather than face the bureaucracy and costs of renewal by doing otherwise.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. In doing so I make the general point that sometimes in
	debates such as this you hear some noble Lords saying that the period is too long and others saying that it is too short, and so going down the middle is normally the solution. The noble Baroness talked about perfection. Dare I say that, perhaps on this clause, we are as near to that as we can be? I will address the amendments and the questions as far as I can but I hope, as I always do with the noble Baroness opposite, that she will gain some reassurance from what I say, if not from my words then at least from my tone.
	These amendments relate to the process of reviewing and extending public spaces protection orders, as we have heard. As noble Lords are aware, there is currently no statutory review point for the orders we are replacing and they can run indefinitely. The argument has been made about where we are today. Putting in a limit is a positive way forward, otherwise—to quote the noble Baroness’s words back at her—these orders run on and on. It is important to look at how they should be reviewed. I believe that there should be a formal review point, which we have decided to set at three years.
	The effect of Amendments 41B and 44A, which stand in my noble friend’s name, would of course be to limit this to 12 months. I have listened to the arguments that she put forward. As we have made clear in the guidance, orders do not have to last for three years—a point just made by the noble and learned Lord. There is flexibility within this, according to the circumstance and the situation and at the discretion of the issuing authority, including the local authority, as to what is appropriate. If appropriate, these can be reviewed or discharged before three years have elapsed. My view is more qualified and endorsed after listening to the debate and I believe that three years is a proportionate balance between the needs of users and the protection of the community, especially given the everlasting orders that we are seeking to replace.
	Amendments 44B and 49A—which I take to be an alternative to Amendments 41B and 44A—would ensure that orders could not be extended more than once. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, raised the specific point that the legislation allows only for renewal. I am sure that he has reflected on Clause 56; there are provisions specifically to allow for the recurrence of a renewal of an order. He is nodding so I am sure that he agrees with the point I am making.
	Of course, there are situations in which longer-term restrictions could be necessary; for example, as I am sure my noble friend is aware, these orders will replace, among other things, dog control orders, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said. This means that a public spaces protection order will be required, as a dog control order is now, to ensure that the fouling of public land is dealt with. I am sure that my noble friend will agree that this is not a problem that can be fixed in three or indeed six years and an ongoing restriction is therefore required. As such, preventing the further renewal of orders would mean communities having to put up with dog mess as well as other potentially anti-social behaviours, such as public drinking.
	Turning to Amendment 48, my noble friend will be aware that the orders being replaced by the public spaces protection order do not include a formal review and, as such, can last indefinitely. In reforming the
	powers, we believed that it was only right that a statutory timeframe was built in, and I am sure that my noble friend will welcome that in principle. As the legislation states, the review should be conducted every three years.
	Of course, I understand the concerns raised by my noble friend about the potential impact of a three-year restriction if applied to all orders but, as I have already said, the legislation is clear that councils can limit the duration of an order to a period of less than three years. Indeed, as the draft guidance suggests, in a situation where a public right of way is being closed for the first time to try to deal with a specific issue, the council may well prefer to review this after a shorter period of time.
	To make this amendment would mean that all orders covering rights of way would have to be reviewed every six months. This would include, as I have already mentioned, welcome restrictions to deal with dog fouling and the consumption of alcohol. This would turn the new power into a bureaucratic nightmare that resulted in councils that decided to use it living in a loop of constant consultation and review. As I have said before, in my own experience as a local councillor for 10 years, consultations were regularly part and parcel of our decision-making, but if we had to issue an order and then immediately start another consultation, I fear that we would be constantly in consultation mode.

Lord Greaves: Does my noble friend accept that there could be a difference between the kinds of restrictions he is talking about, which in appropriate circumstances we would all find sensible to last for a long period of time, and actually banning access itself? It is when access itself is banned on a right of way that the real problems start to occur.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: I take on board what my noble friend is saying. That is why I believe that, as the clauses are drafted, there is flexibility with regard to the circumstances, the situation and indeed the tenure appropriate to the offence that is being perceived. I have already flagged up that in this instance, if an issue arose for the first time, the local authority may well be minded to apply an order of smaller duration to allow for exactly the kind of review and assessment that my noble friend is suggesting. I understand the point my noble friend makes and, as I have said, it probably refers more to the restricting of access than anything else. I have listened and we will consider how to make the guidance more specific in this regard.
	Finally, Amendment 55A relates to appeals against public spaces protection orders. My noble friend has asked for clarification of whether there is a right of appeal against the extension of an order. That is a fair point. The amendment would provide an additional opportunity to challenge an order every time it was extended. This could result in additional appeals, even if the circumstances had not otherwise changed. That said, my noble friend has raised an important point and I will take it away and reflect further on it.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked if I could predict the number of orders and renewals. Crystal balls are hard to come by and the important thing we are seeking to do here is to ensure that the orders are
	specific, time-limited and can be reviewed. Again, if the behaviour has been corrected, the order does not need to stay in place for ever. That is an important point to bear in mind. How often are we expecting the orders to be renewed? That is very much up to the local authorities to decide. One order can cover more than one behaviour with a shorter consultation process, so there is less paperwork, less bureaucracy and less delay. Reviews can be quite light-touch, so one review may be more intensive than another. It would be almost impossible to give a cost for each review.
	We should not forget that there is an absolute need for democratic accountability for the continued operation of these orders. The Government feel that the balance has been struck. The noble Baroness talked about the Ramblers and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home. Perhaps she would like to respond and tell me whether she believes that what we are seeking to do in Clause 56 is appropriate, because the current situation means that there is no time limit. We are seeking to ensure three years, with the possibility to review, and a three-year period is allowed for only if the local authority chooses to persist with that; if it chooses to put one year down, that is its prerogative.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: The noble Lord invites me to say whether I think it is a good idea. The way to find that out is to review the operation after a couple of years. I am not really satisfied that saying that because some people want one year and some people want it for ever, if we find the middle number that is the right way to go. That does not address specific circumstances but I thank him for trying to answer my questions. He missed one: I asked what assessment had been made of why these were needed and what demand there was. Who has called for these changes to be made and have one order covering all three issues?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I hope I have illustrated that there is a need to decrease bureaucracy when you take three and turn it into one. Coming back to a point that the noble Baroness raised about enforcement, it makes that much easier. Certainly, my own experience in local government substantiates that. I am sure other noble Lords may share that experience.
	It is right and proper that these orders should be regularly reviewed. The noble Baroness asks what evidence there is and why we have taken this route. The Government believe it is right to devolve these decisions to the people who are on the coalface, so to speak: the local authorities, the people who are closest to circumstances at a local level. I hope that I can share my own experience but also that of anyone who has served in a local authority. The last thing you need is central government or a central diktat telling you what is appropriate for your local area.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: What the Government are seeking to do is exactly what we have said on the tin: to allow local authorities to decide what is appropriate for them. I always take the laughter of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, as approval.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but if the desire is to give all this freedom to local authorities, I am still not clear why Clause 56 is needed at all. As has been pointed out, Clause 55(8)(c) states, “must … specify the period”, so you cannot just say, “We’ll just whack it in and see what happens”, and Clause 57 allows for variation. While I am on my feet and so as not to interrupt later, in case the Minister does not have the answer in his notes, I would be interested in his response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, as to the objection to changing “must” to “may” in Clause 56(5), so that there might be a less onerous process for the renewal of orders.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: I never object to any noble Lord interjecting and asking questions. I have sought to explain why a defined period is specified in Clause 56. I shall certainly take back the suggestion on this matter made by my noble friend Lord Faulks and speak to officials. However, Clause 56 provides a key link through from Clause 55 to Clause 57 and sets out quite specifically the details behind the order. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee on the understanding that I will further consider Amendment 55A.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, having started as one who believes—I hope that I still do—very considerably in local democracy, I suppose that I have fallen into the trap over the years of viewing whatever comes to us on green paper as restricting it; it is the cynical view that too much legislation has somehow engendered. Like others, I do not see this debate as being two-dimensional in the way that the Minister has just described; that is, “Is it too long or too short? Well, it is in the middle so that must be okay”. It is a three-dimensional debate and the points that have been made about the expression of local democracy are important and serious. The Committee has challenged the structure of the provisions in a way that will bear a good deal of further consideration. The distinction made by my noble friend Lord Greaves between the different types of content of the orders—access on the one hand and particular activities on the other—may also get us to a better point.
	On activities, I should have learnt by now not to look at my BlackBerry during debates, but a very long e-mail on this subject has just arrived from the naturists, who have been quite active in making representations on this Bill. It tells me that nudity is a state, not an activity, so how does this affect them? They are worried.
	I do not want to leave it quite on that point so I come back to what the orders try to do and how that is best achieved. I shall of course withdraw my amendment at this point, but I hope that we might be able to discuss between now and Report how the orders will operate. Sadly, I see that the LGA, whose briefing I have just looked up, says that it does not think that the provisions are in need of further amendment. Perhaps we need to talk to it as well. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 41B withdrawn.
	Amendments 42 to 44B not moved.
	Amendments 44C and 44D
	 Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach
	44C: Clause 56, page 33, line 24, leave out “consult”
	44D: Clause 56, page 33, line 24, at end insert—
	“( ) publicise the proposed extension;”
	Amendments 44C and 44D agreed.
	Amendment 45 not moved.
	Amendment 45A
	 Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach
	45A: Clause 56, page 33, line 25, at beginning insert “consult”
	Amendment 45A agreed.
	Amendment 46 not moved.
	Amendment 46A
	 Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach
	46A: Clause 56, page 33, line 27, at beginning insert “consult”
	Amendment 46A agreed.
	Amendments 47 to 49A not moved.
	Clause 56, as amended, agreed.
	Clause 57: Variation and discharge of orders
	Amendments 49B to 49D
	 Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach
	49B: Clause 57, page 34, line 2, leave out “consult”
	49C: Clause 57, page 34, line 2, at end insert—
	“( ) publish the text of the proposed variation or publicise the proposal to discharge the order (as appropriate);”
	49D: Clause 57, page 34, line 3, at beginning insert “consult”
	Amendments 49B to 49D agreed.
	Amendments 50 and 51 not moved.
	Amendment 51A
	 Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach
	51A: Clause 57, page 34, line 5, at beginning insert “consult”
	Amendment 51A agreed.
	Amendments 52 and 53 not moved.
	Clause 57, as amended, agreed.
	House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.35 pm.

Consumers: Paper Billing
	 — 
	Question for Short Debate

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to the difficulties faced by consumers receiving bills and statements where financial penalties are applied to those choosing to receive them and reply in paper copy.

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I am exceedingly grateful to the Keep Me Posted campaign, which has led the way to this debate. It is already supported by 33 of our most respected charities and is being joined every day by more supporters.
	We are living in a fast-moving, fast-changing society of which one sector, digital access and digital communications, is threatening to take over our lives, leaving out in the cold not only the millions who do not yet have broadband but the elderly, the disabled, their carers and members of their families. While some might be able to go online, very many are not able to and, in any case, they want to hold a piece of paper in their hands showing what they have left, what debts have been paid and what might be owing. They are caused great distress by not being allowed to do so. They are the obvious victims. On access to broadband, we hope that we will hear tonight from the Minister that the Government are aware of the need to get on as quickly as possible.
	There are also people who, like the people whom I have described in what I call the priority areas, can go online but do not always want to do so. They want to pay their bills with cheques or postal orders, and certainly not by direct debit, which we now realise has caused great hardship to many people. There are a lot of people out there who have computer skills but are angry about the extra costs that they incur if they choose not use those skills.
	Big companies, banks and utilities all claim that they must cut costs—and they are right—in order to satisfy their shareholders and to safeguard their workforce. They have made these cuts by requiring online communications. While they are entitled to take that approach, they should also consider their customers, who cannot afford, are not able or do not choose to use these online services. This is not cutting into profits as such. It is taking advantage of some of the big savings that these companies have made by going online as far as they have.
	Every day, I receive examples from people who have annoyance and expense because they do not want to go online. Where they have an alternative telephone line to ring, it is always the most expensive one. For example, Which? recently reported that customers of EDF can expect to encounter an average delay of 19 minutes and nine seconds before they can get on with asking their questions. One can only imagine the enormous cost of that.
	While BT does not charge anybody for a paper statement except businesses, that includes even the smallest businesses. People who receive paper bills are
	not told for the first time until page 3, in the smallest possible print, how much they must pay. For those who want to pay by cheque or postal order because they have no other alternatives, it is often very difficult to find to whom the cheque should be made out. That is not put in a prominent position where they can read it.
	On top of that, we receive blandishments every day from Waitrose, Marks & Spencer and all these people on the huge savings—£75 in the case of Waitrose—to be made if we will only change our accounts to online ones. We are no longer dealing with an equal society of any sort. There are those who are incapable of doing these things online. There are those who are capable but, for one reason or another, do not always want to do so and do not want to be penalised as a result. Furthermore, research has shown that households with online bills or statements are less likely to check them and more likely to fall into debt.
	Things are moving very fast now and we cannot allow them to continue at the present pace without at least putting some safeguards forward to protect the people whom I have described from incurring charges either from freedom of choice or, very often, because they have no alternative. In replying to this debate, I hope that my noble friend will accept that there is a real and urgent need as we move forward to protect consumers’ choice in this matter and to preserve their existing right to exercise it. If we do not do that, more and more problems are likely to arise in the areas that are most vulnerable and more and more annoyance will be caused with companies that are not in any way co-operative. Above all, the right to hold a piece of paper in your hand—to look at what your bank statement is, what your bills are, what has been paid and what has not—is very important.
	This is not just for all those vulnerable people or those others whom I have mentioned who have choice. Many people in high positions in society today are still not ready to accept that they must pay a price for receiving anything on a piece of paper. Only the other day, I had to ring the secretary of one of our foremost doctors. She said, “Well, I have got it on the computer but must print it out before I can see it”. I said, “Oh, thank goodness—one of us. What a wonderful welcome this is. Thank you very much”. “Oh,” she said, “but Dr X”—one of the most prominent doctors in the country, and who is not old—“has said over and over again that he hopes that when he dies he still has a lot of sheets of paper around him with writing on. Then he will die content”.
	This is a social problem. It is a consumer problem. It is a problem where, certainly, the utilities have taken liberties because of the breadth of their market. The time has come for regulators, at the very least, to step in and approve a code of practice in these matters. This issue is becoming more and more urgent and I hope that noble Lords and my noble friend will treat it with the urgency that it deserves.

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, this House has a proud tradition of speaking up for the vulnerable in society and this evening the Question for Short Debate
	in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, stands firmly in that tradition. I congratulate her on it.
	It is bad enough having to pay bills; it is worse having to pay for the bills you have to pay. Yet that is increasingly the situation with Britain’s rapacious utility companies. The mini-scandal we are debating this evening first came to my attention when a letter arrived in our post saying that, from July 2013, we would have to pay £1.50 for each paper bill BT sent to us—that is, £6 a year. That seemed—and still seems—wrong, so I complained to Ofcom. In her reply to me of 19 June, Colette Bowe, Ofcom’s chair, said:
	“We believe providers are entitled to make commercial decisions on the methods through which they provide bills and whether they impose charges to do so”.
	I was under what appears to be an illusion that Ofcom was supposed to be about regulating the market, not prostrating itself before its imperial diktats. She went on to say that Ofcom did,
	“protect certain vulnerable groups from being charged for receiving bills”.
	At that stage, my heart started beating faster with excitement. Then she cited the main group that this applied to: the blind and visually impaired. So, thanks to Ofcom, if you are blind you are entitled to have the bill you cannot read free in any format you choose. You could not make it up.
	What is wrong with Ofcom’s supine stance? It is simply this: yes, it is right that the transformative culture of IT has advanced, should advance and will continue to advance. That is altogether a good thing. Those who support the position of the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, tonight are not in any sense technological Luddites. However, it is an essential precondition of such technical advance that those who cannot benefit from it for one reason or another should be protected from it to the maximum extent possible, and are not penalised simply because they were not lucky enough to grow up, as our children have, in an age where being online was completely natural to them. New technology will be more successful if it is adopted by people as a free choice, not forced down their throat.
	I will illustrate my point by quoting some figures from the ONS about daily computer use among adults. It is rising, yes, but in 2013 it still stood at 70%. That means 30% of the population not accessing a computer daily, either because they cannot, or do not have a computer. They may not have a computer because they cannot afford one. They do not have the good fortune that we rightly have as Members of this House in having one provided. They must buy it themselves and that is not an easy thing for everybody to do.
	Not surprisingly, the figures for old people are very much lower. For those over 65, daily computer use is about half that of the population generally: only 37% of people over 65 access their computer once a day. Roughly 6 million pensioners, therefore, would struggle to get their bill by computer.
	Let us say that half of them—that is a guess, but probably not far out—are BT subscribers. That means that BT might hope in time to make £18 million a year out of its new policy—money screwed out of pensioners,
	fully franked by Ofcom; money that alone would pay the £5 million bonus of BT chief executive Ian Livingstone nearly four times over. Gosh, it is not surprising that they get big bonuses when they think up such brilliant wheezes to screw money out of their more vulnerable customers.
	You would have thought that Ofcom might have had some regard to public opinion. Eighty-four per cent of people think that they should have a choice of how they get their bills, according to an Opinium Research poll for the campaign Keep Me Posted, to which the noble Baroness referred. Forty-one per cent fear that they might miss a payment without such bills. If we think particularly of older pensioners, those are the kind of things that make them worried sick. They do not think, “Oh dear, I might have forgotten to pay”; they think that their telephone might be cut off so that they could not ring the doctor or the hospital if they have a fall. Those things matter to them. Indeed, £6 matters to a pensioner a great deal more than it does to some other people in society.
	BT and the other anti-post billers, will not act. Why should they? It is already given them. Ofcom will not act. Why should it? The free market is its creed. So who is left to act? The Government, who, perhaps in the forthcoming communications Bill, need to legislate to bar the imposition by charge of online-only billing. That would cost Ministers nothing—the Treasury will be glad to learn that—but would be a much appreciated sign that they understand that the vulnerable must be protected against the vagaries of the unregulated free market.

Lord Judge: My Lords, I had a very nervous, sleepless night last night. When I was at the Bar with a difficult case, appearing in front of a difficult tribunal, I had sleepless nights, too. On those occasions, I used to lull myself to sleep. I would find myself fantasising about scoring 100 in a test match at Lord’s against Australia, before lunch, against Lillee and Thomson without a helmet on. That was an amazing way of relaxing before a difficult day in court. I never got more than 50, because I did not need to; I had fallen fast asleep.
	Last night was different. I got my 100 before lunch against Lillee and Thomson and thought to myself, perhaps I am needed in Australia at the moment. Then I scored a hat-trick in the World Cup final—all headed goals—against Germany. Then I scored a winning try against New Zealand down in New Zealand. Then I started batting again in another test match, this time against the West Indies with Roberts, Holding, Marshall and Garner, and I was 75 not out before I fell asleep. This is one of the more nervous occasions for a new speaker.
	I begin, however, by saying that I cannot see any reason for being nervous at all. Since my arrival here, I have received nothing but kindness from everyone, without exception. Whenever I have been lost in all these many corridors, someone has found me. If I may say so, the officers of the Lord Convenor of the Cross Benches have been tireless in their patience with me in my anxiety to get this ordeal over. I thank you, my
	Lords, and through you, all the many people and staff here in the House who have been so kind to me.
	I declare my support for the noble Baroness on the issue which I wish to address in relation to the generation—sadly, a passing one—for whom the new world of technology is not something merely to be passed by but, to some, represents something of a nightmare. This is not dealing directly with the matters currently in debate, but how often do they find that disembodied voice from, say, Hyderabad, of huge assistance to them? How often do they find a disembodied Home Counties voice telling them that they must listen and then press one of 10 numbers on their telephone and then, having found their way through to which one it should be, press the appropriate number, then come up with another five numbers which they have to listen to and press? What about the machine that you stick a card into that produces cash, but that you cannot tell has failed to give you the correct amount? What about the necessity of remembering codewords and passwords, when everyone tells you that the one thing you must not do is to write them down anywhere in case someone finds out what they are?
	I declare an interest. My mother is 94 years old. Like so many of her generation, she is intrepid. Like so many of them, happily, she values knowledge rather than tricks. New knowledge, she is still interested in—new tricks, not. I suspect that there are many like her. They were well into their 80s when Facebook, Google and Twitter were invented. Can we please all remember that none of those existed only 10 years ago? They were taught, when young, to check their bills and their bank accounts carefully. Indeed, some of us remember our parents receiving the cheques which they had sent. Some of us, I dare say, are old enough even to remember having received the cheques ourselves. For them, a computer is not part of everyday living—not for all of them; of course some are adventurous and wish to enjoy the fruits of modern technology, but some do not. For some, online billing is a meaningless concept and they do not wish to have anything to do with it.
	What is the real cost to the utility companies which do not provide paper billing for those individuals? I am ignoring the notional figures. Some expert consultant will tell a company that the cost is vast, enormous or huge. I suggest that the real cost cannot be all that high. There is a postage stamp and a member of staff to press the button on the company computer to produce the goods.
	I end by asking, can we, should we not, offer the particular generation on whom I have focused my attention—the sadly but inevitably diminishing generation about whom I have spoken—something just a little more generous than penalising them for failing to keep up with the world as it is?

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, in this short debate, I am delighted to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and have great pleasure in congratulating him on his excellent maiden speech. It was original, amusing and very informative. For those
	of us taking part in this debate, it is valuable to hear from someone who has such a wide experience of the law, and therefore has an understanding of how citizens deal with authorities and how they try to deal with the bureaucracy that goes with them. I did a little research, as we are required to do when new Members come in. I understand that the noble and learned Lord is very keen on cricket. Indeed, his maiden speech proved that to be the case, so perhaps I may commiserate with him over the rather sad events of the weekend for the English cricket team.
	I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes for introducing tonight’s debate about the difficulties facing consumers who cannot get paper billing without penalties. How you view this matter will probably depend on one or more of the following factors: how old you are, as we heard very clearly in our maiden speech this evening; how big or small a player you are in today’s complicated society; how well off you are; and where you live.
	Beginning with the generational issue, I am 68 and I can use modern technology but I find it difficult to completely trust it, if I am honest. I like important things to be on paper. I understand that most self-employed people find it easier to collate pieces of paper for their tax return; that is certainly the case for me. I am also much quicker on paper—I have my notes for this speech on paper because of that. I may not be entirely rational about this but I have a terrible fear of having my identity stolen. I think it was listening to some programmes on the radio about it that set this off. It is mainly because I cannot really imagine how I would sort out such a situation, given the busy life that I lead here. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, I suppose that I really am a bit of a Luddite.
	My mother, too, is 94 and she has been diagnosed with dementia. There is absolutely no way that she could lead her life online. We have to remember that this will always be the case for some of us. We are living longer and there will be more people who are unable to remember passwords and so on, which have already been mentioned this evening. I am sure that my grandchildren will not feel the same way as I do and I know that my daughters are quite happy to lead their lives online. But between myself and my mother there is a wide spectrum of others who cannot or do not want to live theirs online. I understand that there are something like 7 million adults—they are largely elderly but include vulnerable and disabled adults—who cannot access the internet. Many people also live in rural areas which still have no internet access, although that is getting better.
	Turning to the size issue, Judith Donovan, who is the chair of the Keep Me Posted campaign has said,
	“At present the public appetite for paper bills does not correlate with the preference”
	of large organisations, which is quite true. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, talked a lot about BT and Ofcom. Within the communications sector, two in 10 companies give customers the choice of a bill format when signing up. I understand that in three-quarters of the cases, customers are charged for paper bills. There are issues about this. BT charges me £5 because I want to pay by
	cheque and post—I am the Luddite. However, I have done slightly better with O2, with which I have changed my arrangements and got a new phone. They said, “Of course, you realise that under this new arrangement you are going to have to have the bill on your phone”. However, somehow they forgot and I am still getting a paper bill, so I am doing all right out of that.
	There has been much discussion in recent months about the big six energy companies, which was touched on this evening. I choose to pay by cheque and post; I pay more for it and pay more than I need to. But those who are less well off and cannot access the internet have no choice; they have to pay more for their fuel. They are often living in some of the least energy-efficient homes and on low incomes. They are a group that some of us in this House campaign on: the fuel poor. Yes, being paperless is cheaper and more profitable for the companies. It is more environmentally friendly. But is it fair to make the most disadvantaged in society pay a premium for the services and goods that they require?
	Despite our living in an era when everyone seems to have a smartphone or an iPad, one-third of UK households do not have a personal computer, 20% of disabled people are not online and 53% of those who say that they never use a computer are disabled. Of course, in my age group eight out of 10 of those aged 65 or over want to keep their paper statements. This rises to nine out of 10 in the over-80s. As has been touched on, in another 20 or 30 years the situation may be slightly different, but for now I hope that the Minister will take on board the important and pressing issues raised by everyone in this debate. I hope that he can give us rather more comfort than he did when answering a Question on this very issue which was put to him by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in this House last month.

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: We must all thank the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, for getting this debate in front of the House tonight. I thank also those who have rallied to her cause and who, as my noble friend Lord Lipsey said, are not Luddites. It is a particular delight that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has chosen this debate in which to break his silence in this House. He may feel that he is needed in Australia at the moment but as he introduced the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, today, who is from Wales, perhaps he should take up rugby instead. We are rather more successful at that.
	The case that has been made out by the noble Baroness is quite clear. The service exists, after all, for consumers who pay for it and make the providers’ profits. Those consumers should therefore have a free choice of whether to have a paper or an electronic bill, with no price tag attached to either. This is part of a broader issue of defending consumer rights, especially where consumers cannot shop around to get a better service. We are all fed up of being charged when we want to book our theatre tickets, for example. After all, you cannot go to the theatre without a ticket so it is not an add-on to what is being provided; it is an essential part of it. One cannot shop around for which theatre to go to, as the play is on in only one place.
	Even budget airlines are beginning to realise that the allocation of a seat and the purchase of a ticket are an essential part of the journey—as opposed to a cup of coffee, which may be an add-on. So, surely, it ought to be in the areas of energy and the telephone.
	It is impossible for people to shop around if all the providers are charging for bills, especially when they do not say at the outset what the cost will be or, according to the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, when they write it in such a small typeface that none of us can read it. Even if one shops around for a supplier, the issue of billing will hardly be uppermost in one’s mind as one makes that choice. Effectively, these suppliers are adding a fee over which we cannot negotiate. Yet a bill is an essential component of the contract of service, not an optional extra.
	These charges are not just the price of a stamp. Talk Talk charges £1.90 a month, and T-Mobile £18 a year. Given the weakness of the negotiating position of individual customers, it must be for the Government, an ombudsman or a regulator to stand in the consumer’s shoes and sort out the problem, as my noble friend Lord Lipsey suggested. Of course, had the Government not abolished Consumer Focus, there would be such a body. But have this Government any interest in consumers, like the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, former Minister and consumer champion? Apologies—she is a former Minister but she is still a consumer champion.
	Do we not care about the old, the young and the vulnerable, who will be those most disadvantaged by having to pay to get a bill? Losing paper statements will disadvantage the elderly, as we have heard; only one-third of over-75s have browsed the internet. However, it is not just the elderly—7 million adults have never used the internet. One in seven does not have the internet at home and does not intend to get it, a quarter on grounds of cost. Some 16 million consumers over 15 do not have basic online skills. Even young people are not immune. One in 10 of those not in employment, education or training feels out of their depth using a computer. E-mails, even for those who are fairly familiar with them, are not always reliable. In fact, if your e-mail gets caught by a spam filter, it may never reach you, making payments easy to miss. Furthermore, online billing requires you to notify a change in e-mail address; it is sometimes easy to forget to do so—and there is no redirection facility, as with our much beloved Post Office.
	Another issue, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, is the risk associated with the internet of people fearing that they may lose their identity or access to personal information. One in four new internet users says that they would never share personal information online.
	Another problem comes when printing copies of online statements, which may not be regarded as official, and certainly not as proof of address, on those occasions when you need to prove that. People who need a paper copy for tax, or as evidence of a transaction, would have to pay for it, with most banks already charging up to £10 for duplicate statements. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, reminds us, there is also the issue of remembering passwords as well as user names, especially as we are meant to have a combination of
	letters, capital letters and numbers—so we cannot even have an easy password. That is difficult not only for the elderly but for anyone with dyslexia or dyspraxia.
	Another group that has approached me about this is students and flat sharers, who need paper bills so they can all see who owes what, rather than having to give control over bills to just one person. Those who claim expenses may need a paper copy of a bill to make a claim. Some institutions do not accept printed copies of online statements; indeed, the European Parliament will not even accept a photocopy—it has to be an original invoice, to be able to claim expenses. So people will have to pay for that documentation.
	The real issue is why providers consider us users as merely a cost. Why should they be able to save money by charging consumers without whom they simply would not be in business? The average energy bill already includes £53 of profits for the company; the least they can do, surely, is to send us an invoice detailing how much to pay, and for what. As Judith Donovan, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, also said:
	“This is not an anti-online campaign, it’s a pro-choice campaign”.
	We turn to the Government on this. We know that half of those with no access to the internet are in the lowest socioeconomic groups, but they are the ones who will have to pay for paper bills, and the ones who can least afford it. Not only that, but the Government are insisting on universal credit being online. This is surely nonsensical, given that even we here, most of whom can use the computer, want to pay our bills on paper. The idea that those who are not confident with the net should have their whole universal credit claim and income dealt with in this way is ridiculous.
	The real question for the Government is what they will do about this situation, in which charges are being added, despite the choice that consumers want to make. The Government have a draft Bill on consumer rights, but how can they even use that phrase while allowing these rip-off practices to continue? We look forward to hearing about some robust action that they will take to make sure that consumers get a fair deal.

Viscount Younger of Leckie: My Lords, I first extend my gratitude to my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes for securing this debate. As my noble friend Lady Maddock has mentioned, I am aware that my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes asked a supplementary question in this Chamber on a similar subject during an Oral PQ raised initially by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. My response to her question, and my response to some other questions, clearly did not strike a chord in this House. I recognise this and have had a few weeks to reflect on the subject further.
	In replying, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge on his maiden speech, on sharing his passion for this issue with the House today and on speaking up for those who are concerned about the advances of the digital age and the so-called generational issue.
	I say at the outset that I fully recognise and understand that there are those in this House and elsewhere in the country who, as individuals or for business purposes, may wish to continue to receive statements, bills and other documents through the post. I also recognise that some people may never wish to go online, nor indeed even use a computer, let alone other modern gadgets such as iPads or smartphones. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, both made the good point that some people cannot afford a computer. Again, I respect this. However, noble Lords cannot fail to notice that, whether we like it or not, the movement towards a fast-paced and rapidly changing digital age is inexorable; indeed, my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes alluded to this very fact. For example, some 60% of the UK population now have a smartphone, and we are responding to the huge demand for a comprehensive rollout of broadband.
	The backdrop to this debate is therefore rather complex. The pace of change is fast. If we press the rewind button—if I may be allowed to use that term—e-mail only really became widespread during the late 1990s. Some noble Lords may recall the first cordless phones, as big as a brick and almost as heavy. Now we manage our lives using mobile phones, and even more, from having health gadgets on our wrists to writing e-mails using voice recognition. Doing all sorts of things on the move, be it checking on the weather or traffic, paying bills, even finding places and locating friends using satellite tracking, is becoming the norm. I hasten to add that I need to be brought up to date with all these gadgets myself.
	The focus of the debate today is on how we help those facing difficulties or charges when wishing to retain the option of receiving traditional bills and statements through the post. I am the first to say that I have some sympathy with the traditional approach, but if I tried to hold back the tide of change I could on the other hand be accused of being a latter-day King Canute. The sons, daughters and grandchildren of many noble Lords here today do not feel the same need for paper. In exactly one month’s time, many will be sending Christmas e-cards to friends and relatives. Some people lack the space or inclination to store reams of bills. They want information at their digital fingertips, not buried somewhere in a pile on the coffee table. I recognise some of the statistics that have been adduced this evening about people being less efficient if they receive bills online.
	The challenge to service providers is therefore to cater for the full spectrum of their customers, providing options and reassurance on billing and prices for the digital and non-digitally minded alike. The questions before us are, first, whether there should be an ongoing, default right to receive documentation through the post by request; secondly, if so, who should foot the cost; and, finally, how it might be underpinned by legislation. I reassure noble Lords that there are already several protections in place for the vulnerable, including the elderly. The Equality and Human Rights Act ensures that the rights of those physically unable to access material online are protected. More generally, the Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012 prohibit excessive charges being applied to specific
	ways of paying, such as paying over the counter at the Post Office. Regulators such as Ofwat and Ofcom ensure that protections are in place, in their sectors, for the most vulnerable. As was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, blind or visually impaired people can get their bills in an accessible format such as Braille. In the energy sector, for example, suppliers are not able to levy an additional charge for sending paper bills, but they may still offer a discount to those paying online. In so doing, I make it clear that they are not penalising the paper bill recipient but sharing genuine cost savings with the online customer.
	Business is responding. For example, special tariffs for telephones, such as BT Basic, are available to those on low incomes, providing paper bills at no additional charge. In banking, thanks to the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, access to transactional accounts is being broadened so that more people can use electronic payments.
	I hope that this provides some reassurance but, as I said before, the digital age is moving rapidly upon us and much of it is driven by demand for efficiency and savings. According to the Digital Efficiency Report in 2011, the cost of an online transaction is 20 times lower than a phone one, and 30 times lower than a postal one. Companies cannot ignore such figures and the Government also need to consider savings.
	However, there are wider drivers for change facing all of us that I might also mention. I mentioned earlier that it was a complex picture. Banks, councils and utilities, and the Government too, know that there is an increasing demand from their customers or citizens to go green and cut paper. People want to receive bills, receipts and statements online, reducing their impact on the use of natural resources. One can understand why. I might ask how many of your Lordships—I might ask myself this question—spend the weekend sorting through the post and seeking the right recycling bin to throw out those statements, receipts and circulars which you judge you will never read again. While doing so, you may ‘well also wonder at the number of trees cut down to create all that paper. As a result, the specific question for us here is whether government should focus its efforts on controlling how business responds to customers—reflecting nominal and justifiable charges to certain bills—or on making markets more competitive to the benefit of all customers. Our stance remains to leave operational decisions to companies to act within the commercial spirit while putting in place the appropriate regime to ensure competition and protect the most vulnerable in our society.
	It may be that in 20 years’ time, when I am approaching my eighties, this will be a largely paperless world. However, as the Government have committed, those not online will not be left behind. The Government’s approach to assisted digital exemplifies best practice in helping people access digital services and the benefits that going online can bring. Business should be looking to provide similar assistance. This House may recognise that, with advancing technology, the number of people feeling disfranchised by online billing is likely to diminish over time. That does not mean that we ignore the needs of the older generation. Options are there for
	those who wish to choose paper, but businesses should continue to meet the needs of their customers, both young and old.
	In the time available I will address a number of questions that were raised.

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: Before the noble Viscount does so, let us be absolutely clear. Is he saying that the Government will do nothing about the issues that have been raised, or did I misunderstand him?

Viscount Younger of Leckie: I can reassure the noble Baroness that that is not the case. We are encouraging businesses to bring in processes that will help more the vulnerable—I have already spelt out what we are doing. The Government, of course, provide the framework, but we believe that it is very much for companies to decide to put themselves in a position to help people in this respect.

Lord Lipsey: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount again but, to press the point, why is it in the interests of companies to help the vulnerable?

Viscount Younger of Leckie: It is in the interest of companies to look after all their customers, otherwise they will go away. That includes all those people who are vulnerable and, as I mentioned earlier, all those across the spectrum who require the service. As I mentioned earlier, looking at the generational issues the picture is complex in terms of the current needs of customers.
	My noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes raised the issue of some companies not being up front about the charges, which is a very fair point. In the communications sector regulations are in place that prescribe that such charges must be set out in a clear, comprehensive and easily accessible form so that consumers can make informed decisions. The consumer rights directive will mean that suppliers should obtain consumers’ express consent to any extra charges and that they should not use a tick-box approach that requires consumers to un-tick boxes in order to avoid charges. The directive must come into force by June 2014.
	The noble Baroness also raised the issue of charging premium-call rates. In April, Ofcom announced plans to simplify the pricing of telephone numbers such as 0800 numbers. Under its proposals, calls to 0800 numbers from mobile phones will be free. Ofcom will publish the final proposals shortly. The noble Baroness also raised the issue of payment by cheques. There may be a legitimate charge for paying by cheques rather than paying electronically, but this charge is not levied as a norm. Any such charge would need to have been justified by relation to the additional cost. That is underpinned by the Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012, to which I alluded earlier.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, raised the issue of the response that he received from Ofcom about his question regarding a charge from a bill from his service provider. I repeat that what companies charge for their services is a commercial decision. In a competitive market consumers have choice and can move to a different provider. On the role of regulators, more widely, the Government have announced a number of reviews
	that look at competition and consumer issues. That may help to address the comments raised earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. For example, the PM has asked the regulators to instigate an annual review of the state of competition in the energy market. Ofcom published telecoms proposals in the summer and the Government have called on the industry to provide greater price transparency, particularly in communications with customers at the point of contract renewal.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, raised the generational issue of those aged over 65 who are offline. The Government are committed to helping people access the benefits of digital services. The Government Digital Service Digital Inclusion Team is working closely with the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, to ensure that we protect the vulnerable.
	My noble friend Lady Maddock made a good point about security online. Trust and security are major concerns and the Government are working with the online security industry to make it simpler and easier to protect individuals online. My noble friend also asked about charges for telecoms paper bills. Recipients of paper bills are not generally charged extra, even though they are being charged more than the discounted price. Should companies wish to charge for a paper bill or make a reduction for a digital bill or digital payment, they must ensure that the charge reflects only the different processing costs incurred.
	This House may recognise that, with advancing technology, the number of people feeling disfranchised by online billing is likely to diminish over time. I fully accept that there remain those who continue to wish for, and, indeed, need, paper through the post in the form of receipts, bills and statements, but we do not believe that legislating further on charging for paper bills is necessary when options are available and protections are already in place for the most vulnerable.
	Sitting suspended.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
	 — 
	Committee (4th Day) (Continued)

Clause 58: Premises etc to which alcohol prohibition does not apply
	Amendment 53A
	 Moved by Lord Greaves
	53A: Clause 58, page 35, line 2, at end insert—
	“(5) The meaning of “local authority” in this section includes a parish council and a Welsh community council.”

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 53C. This small group contains two completely unrelated amendments. The first simply asks why premises owned by parish and town councils are not treated in exactly the same way as premises owned by district or other principal councils in terms of exemptions from alcohol bans. District councils are
	treated in a slightly less strict way compared with other premises, but I do not understand why town councils are not treated in the same way, as they very often own what people think are council-owned facilities in small and medium-sized towns.
	Amendment 53C is a more important amendment, and it reads fairly cryptically. It proposes inserting at the end of line 41 on page 35,
	“notify such other persons as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State”.
	It relates to Clause 60, which concerns orders restricting a public right of way over a highway. Therefore, we are back to that subject.
	The existing legislation in a number of different areas relating to access contains designated or specified organisations. There is a list of those organisations and they usually appear in secondary legislation rather than in an Act. I remember arguing a long time ago during the passage of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, as well as the Commons Bill in 2006 and some others, that they ought to be in an Act, but they ended up in regulations.
	In the CROW Act, proposals relating to access concern restrictions on access land; in the case of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, they concern closures and diversions of rights of way; and in the Marine and Coastal Access Act, they are to do with the designation of access land and the coastal route. In all these cases there is a designated or, in the more recent legislation, specified list of organisations which are notified of proposals. The list includes access organisations such as the Ramblers, the British Mountaineering Council and the Open Spaces Society. It also includes representatives of landowners. For example, the Country Land and Business Association, formerly known as the Country Landowners Association, is on a specified list, as are other organisations. It is a balanced list and it is a matter of automatic notification.
	The purpose of this slightly cryptic amendment is to ensure that such a list—really it is the same list as in the other legislation—applies in the case of proposals to restrict, and particularly to stop access to, rights of way so that those organisations have the opportunity to make representations just as they have in other cases. Particularly on the rights of way we are talking about here, if what was being proposed was a closure or diversion under the Highways Act, as amended by the Wildlife and Countryside Act, that right would exist.
	I shall say what I said before we had our dinner break: nowadays such notifications are far easier than they used to be. Once a system has been set up, it is just a question of pressing two or three keys on a computer keyboard. If I can set up that sort of system easily enough, I am sure that local authorities would have no difficulty doing so. I beg to move.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling his amendments. On Amendment 53A, I appreciate and understand the important role that parish and town councils and community councils in Wales play in delivering key services in their area and, importantly, in creating a feeling of community; for instance, through the organisation of social events and so on and so forth.
	The Bill provides some level of protection for council-operated licensed premises so that they can organise the kind of social events I have referred to but, as my noble friend has suggested, the narrower definition of local authority in this part of the Bill may mean that protection is not afforded to the types of council covered in the amendment. As such, it could result in the parish council not being able to sell alcohol at its annual fête because of a wider controlled drinking zone implemented by the district council. I have listened very carefully to my noble friend’s comments and have reflected on the amendment. If he will agree to withdraw it, we will certainly consider any further and wider implications of the change suggested and return to this on Report.
	Amendment 53C would give the Secretary of State the ability to add, by regulation, to the list of persons who should be consulted before access is restricted. We believe that, as currently drafted, the Bill covers all those who should be consulted in each case. I am happy to provide further examples in the guidance but we do not believe there is a need to provide the Secretary of State with the ability to prescribe additions to the list. As my noble friend knows, it would, of course, be open to a local authority to consult more widely, if it so chose. On the basis that I accept in spirit his first amendment and with the explanation I have given on his second amendment, I hope that he will be minded not to press his amendments.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, having just had a splendid dinner, I am tempted to put the first amendment in this group to a vote and see what the Government do, but I shall not. I shall be a good boy. I thank the Minister for his very constructive response.
	On Amendment 53C, I do not understand why organisations which are consulted at the moment on all similar proposals should not be consulted on these proposals. There is a suggestion that these national organisations ought to keep out of these local decisions, but we are talking about rights of way networks which have national or regional importance as public footpaths for many people who do not live locally. There is an issue of principle here which I would like to discuss further with the Government. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 53A withdrawn.
	Clause 58 agreed.
	Clause 59 agreed.
	Clause 60: Orders restricting public right of way over highway
	Amendments 53B to 53FA not moved.
	Amendment 53G
	 Moved by Lord Greaves
	53G: Clause 60, page 36, line 17, at end insert—
	“(6A) A public spaces protection order may not restrict the rights of any person in relation to a private right of way.”

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I thought that I was going to get a rest; my noble friend did not tell me that she was not moving her amendment, or if she did, I have forgotten.
	I will be interested to hear what the Government have to say about Amendment 53G. Amendment 53H is slightly more complicated. It applies yet again to the sort of area in which I live where there are county councils and district councils in a two-tier system. The district council will be responsible for making public spaces protection orders. The county council is the highways authority, which is responsible by law for maintaining public rights of way to an acceptable standard so as to ensure that people can walk on footpaths and ride horses along bridleways, for example. County councils do not always carry out those duties to a great extent, but nevertheless they are responsible in law for maintaining these rights of way. It seems wrong that the district council does not consult the county. The Minister has already said that the Government will look favourably at making sure that county councils, as highways authorities, are consulted. The question is this: what if the highways authority objects to closing one of its highways? Does it have a veto or not? I am suggesting that it should, but I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, I have a couple of quick questions on this issue. We tabled a clause stand part debate and I was slightly taken aback when the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, withdrew her two amendments because they touch on the issue that I wish to raise.
	First, it seems to me that there has to be a very good reason to restrict a public right of way over a highway. Will it be in guidance, as there is nothing here to say that it should be a matter of last resort and that all other options should be considered before taking that step? It would be useful to have the Minister’s comments on that. Secondly, I have clearly been dreaming about this Bill—I am affected so greatly by it. I have just checked with the noble Lord’s officials as I was absolutely convinced that I had read in a letter from the Minister that he would make the amendment anyway, but I am told he has not. Clearly it is a very good amendment and he should make it. Will he enlighten me on Clause 60(3) which states:
	“Before a local authority makes a public spaces protection order restricting the public right of way over a highway that is also within the area of another local authority, it must consult that other authority if it thinks it appropriate to do so”?
	Why would it not think it appropriate to do so? Why would it not consult the other authority in whose area the highway on which it wishes to restrict public access or the right of way belongs? In my dreams I thought that this had already been done, but I am told by the Minister’s officials that it has not. Can he comment on that and explain why the authority must consult the other authority in whose area the highway is only if it thinks it appropriate to do so, rather than seeking the permission of the other authority as a matter of course? I hope that the Minister will clarify this as I am puzzled by the subsection.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I hope I can appear in the noble Baroness’s dreams in a good light. Do not have nightmares; that is all I say.
	The decision to restrict activity on or access to public rights of way should not be taken lightly. Where anti-social behaviour, crime or disorder is present, local authorities will need to weigh up the impact of restricting access against the needs of the community. There are, as we have already discussed, additional consultation requirements associated with public rights of way above and beyond those expected more generally for a public spaces protection order. Those affected by the order must be notified of the proposal and be given details of how to see a copy of the restrictions. The local authority must also notify those persons of how they can make representations, and these representations must be considered before the order can be made.
	Amendment 53G, proposed by my noble friend Lord Greaves, aims to protect private rights of way. I assure my noble friend that I agree with his sentiment. I am happy to confirm that the definition of public spaces included in Clause 60 will not allow for the order to be used for private rights of way. The principal access route to homes cannot be closed with a public spaces protection order. As such, I do not believe the amendment needs to be made.
	On Amendment 53H, I understand the issue here relates to areas where there is a district council and a county council. Indeed, just as the noble Lord lives in such an area, so do I. In the situation described in the amendment, while the district council has the ability to make an order, the county council is likely to act as the highway authority. Therefore, in line with the consultation requirements I have just described, before restricting access the district council should consult the county council about the terms. However, I do not believe that this should come with a right of veto. In the majority of cases the evidence presented will be sufficient for both bodies, acting in the interests of the communities they serve, to agree. However, where this is not the case it should not prolong the misery for victims and communities, and so the district council should be free to make the order. On the basis of what I have said, I hope my noble friend will withdraw the amendment and I beg to move that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
	On the specific question asked by the noble Baroness about the phrase in the clause,
	“it must consult that other authority if it thinks it appropriate to do so”,
	I can hardly see how, in the case of a public highway, it would be possible for a local authority to do other than consult those people. I have a note here which has come to my rescue. As to why it states in Clause 60(3),
	“only if it is appropriate to do so”,
	it is hard to imagine a situation where a council would not do so. However, it adds flexibility. Clause 60(3) was added to the Bill on Report in the Commons in response to a point raised by Gloria de Piero, the honourable Member leading on the Bill for the Opposition. It may be that the letter the noble Baroness is thinking of is the one from Damian Green to David Hanson of 7 October dealing with the Government’s
	amendments on Report in the Commons. I cannot remember ever discussing this issue before. However, it was added to the Bill on Report in the Commons, presumably with agreement.
	I should say that it is only as a last resort. We have made it clear that the added flexibility means it is less likely that a right of way will be closed. This is covered in the guidance and we do not believe it needs to be in the Bill. It is also worth making clear that highways of strategic value cannot be restricted.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord sought to assist me, and I want to respond to his answer because he has actually puzzled me even more. He said, both before and after receiving enlightenment from the other end of the Chamber, that he really cannot conceive of the circumstances where it would not be appropriate to consult the other authority. He says that the provision was put in on Report in the other place. However, that does not really answer my question. Can he give me any circumstance where he thinks it would not be appropriate? That might help me to understand why it is there.

Baroness Hamwee: I wonder whether I should come in on the same issue to allow time for reflection. As I said to the Minister through his officials, I did not move my amendment because I assumed that there must be legislation which would require both authorities to agree. I read “consult” in this clause as meaning consult not around the outcome of actual closure but about the things surrounding it. I thought that, rather than taking the Committee’s time, I would simply not move it. Perhaps it would have been better if I had.

Lord Harris of Haringey: Perhaps the Minister can assist the Committee by giving us some examples of when this power might be required and what the circumstances would be. It is about restricting the public right of way to a highway, but under what circumstances is that likely to happen and what sort of roads would these be? The requirement is to notify “potentially affected persons”, which,
	“means occupiers of premises adjacent to or adjoining the highway, and any other persons in the locality who are likely to be affected by the proposed order”.
	Depending on the nature of the highway concerned, that could be a very large number. One also wonders why it is confined to the locality when it might have a much wider impact. I suspect that the answers might be clearer if I had a better understanding of the circumstances in which the Government envisage this power being used. If they are rather narrower than the potential of this clause seems to suggest, I would like some clarity on why that is not made clearer in the clause.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, it may be that I have been misreading this particular clause. I assumed that it was evidence of the phenomenon where you have both a district council and a county council, which my noble friend Lord Greaves referred to. It may be, of course, that the highway lies in two local authority areas, and that by restricting it to one local authority, an adjacent local authority that shares the
	highway might be affected. In that case it clearly would be appropriate for there to be consultation between the authorities. In effect, there would be a joint highway, shared with other authorities.
	However, I am hazarding a guess and seeking to inform the House on the basis of guess-work. My best position is to say to noble Lords that there is clearly some uncertainty about the meaning of this and that I am quite prepared to write to noble Lords with all the detail. This is based on current gating order legislation, which has been used for many years by councils to deal with anti-social behaviour, so we might see a similar clause there. Clause 60 needs to be read with Clause 61, in particular subsection (1), which describes which public highways cannot be restricted. It excludes strategic highways, so it is non-strategic highways that are being considered here. I will write to noble Lords explaining how these two clauses operate together, as clearly they are both of a part.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his very helpful suggestion for trying to get to the bottom of what it means. When he writes, perhaps he could focus on giving us an answer about when he thinks it would not be appropriate to consult the other authority. The other points he made are relevant and helpful.

Lord Harris of Haringey: Perhaps in that letter the noble Lord could also give some examples of circumstances in which he thinks the power would be used. It seems that it may be a wider power than simply gating regulations in the past and might be used over and beyond them. We are back to the whole issue of why we should change something just for the sake of it, which might add increased ambiguity as a consequence.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, that is very interesting. The discussion went beyond where I thought it might go. I was talking really about footpaths and bridleways but we now find that this power may apply to a majority of the road network in this country—no?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I point my noble friend to Clause 61(1), in which he will find a list of the highways to which it cannot apply.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I think the Minister is relying on Clause 61(1)(e), which refers to,
	“a highway in England of a description prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State”,
	because the rest of them are,
	“a special road … a trunk road … a classified or principal road … a strategic road”.
	I am not sure that in terms of sheer mileage, they cover more than half the roads in the country. Unclassified roads are legion. No doubt they will appear in the prescribed description of roads made by the Secretary of State. To add to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, we really want to know what roads will be prescribed under that subsection so that we can work out what is left and what might become public space.
	As I say, that is all very interesting. On the first amendment, on private rights of way, I hesitate to get
	into the intricacies of private rights of way because there has been quite a lot of case law and it is all very complicated. I ask the Minister to have another look at it because it is quite possible for private rights of way to cross public land that will be designated as public space. This needs a bit more attention. Having said that, I withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 53G withdrawn.
	Amendment 53H not moved.
	Clause 60 agreed.
	Clause 61: Categories of highway over which public right of way may not be restricted
	Amendment 54 not moved.
	Clause 61 agreed.
	Clause 62: Challenging the validity of orders
	Amendment 55
	 Moved by Lord Greaves
	55: Clause 62, page 37, line 7, leave out “An interested” and insert “A”

Lord Greaves: My Lords, this amendment is about who can appeal to the High Court if they are dissatisfied with the council’s decision to declare a public spaces protection order. At the moment Clause 62 says that it has to be an “interested person”, and that they can question the validity of either the order or a variation of the order. It then says:
	“‘Interested person’ means an individual who lives in the restricted area or who regularly works in or visits that area”.
	I am suggesting that it should be just “a person”—anybody can do it.
	There are two reasons for this. One is that the current definition is wide open to vague interpretation. It is fairly clear if you live or work in the area, but whether a person who regularly visits the area is an interested person is open to interpretation. In any case, why should a person who wishes to visit the area, or who intends to visit it, or who occasionally or intermittently visits it, not have the right? If they go only once a year and walk on a particular path, why should they not be able to challenge a decision to close that path?
	The second reason is that the definition as set out in the Bill appears to exclude national and regional organisations that regularly represent people who use rights of way, people who walk on access land, or people who may visit town and village greens. We are talking about the same group of organisations: perhaps the Ramblers, the British Mountaineering Council and the Open Spaces Society and others. Why should they not be able to bring a case to the High Court on behalf of their members or of people who have appealed to them? Let us remember that the Ramblers have rather more members than all the political parties put together and is a representative organisation which is used to taking such cases from time to time. Why is it excluded in this case? Why is the right suddenly being closed down so that it can be exercised only by people
	with a much more local connection? This seems mean-hearted. There seems to be no obvious, sensible reason for it. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s excuses for it—because I think they will be excuses—and I will listen carefully to what he has to say.
	It is possible for the Ramblers nationally to take an issue to judicial review under the Highways Act, the CROW Act or the Marine and Coastal Access Act, or any other Act that involves village greens, town greens or access to land, on behalf of people who may not have either the resources to go to the High Court—perhaps they would have the resources—or the know-how. Efficient review through the courts of things like this depends on the people taking those reviews being experts, so that they know what they are talking about on both sides. This is an unnecessary and mean-minded provision. I beg to move.

Lord Faulks: My Lords, this clause comes under the heading “validity of orders”. From the way in which it is framed it seems very much as though it is in the form of a judicial review of an administrative order. What is interesting about the way in which the whole scheme of the legislation is formed is that there is the power to make, vary or discharge orders under Clause 57, so that local people who are affected by the orders and are discontent with them can vary or discharge them relatively simply. Yet here we have this clause, which provides for a high-level challenge by way of judicial review.
	The provision is described in the Explanatory Notes as an appeal route for either an order or variation of an order, but it contains the sort of restrictions that you would expect in judicial review, in particular subsection (1), which is to do with what used to be referred to as locus standi—in other words, have you got the standing to challenge this? I respectfully disagree with my noble friend that there should be no restriction at all on who should be able to challenge the orders. There is always a restriction; there has to be a proper connection with the subject matter. Where we are concerned with a local order covering a specific area, it seems only appropriate that those given the opportunity to review it should be those with a close connection with it, rather than somebody who simply has a general view about the orders.
	However, I am slightly concerned about Clause 62(7), which appears to say that this is the only way in which such an order can be challenged, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the court to carry out judicial review. That is quite a radical step for a Government to take. If there was no Clause 62, it seems to me that it would be perfectly open to somebody affected and who had the appropriate standing to challenge this order by way of judicial review on the grounds that it was unlawful, just in the way that is set out within the body of Clause 62. I wonder how necessary Clause 62 is at all. There is judicial review, which I would suggest is very much a last resort, and then there are the powers to vary or discharge it. Do we really need this rather curiously described appeal that is really a judicial review?

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I echo the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, because
	I do not understand what this clause is about. Maybe it is my failure to read it properly, but this seems to be about a mechanism for challenging process. It is not an appeals process so it does not do what is says on the tin or in the Explanatory Notes. This is solely about the validity of orders. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is concerned about the Ramblers’ Association acting on behalf of ramblers who use a path. The association would only be able to challenge an order on the basis that the local authority did not have the power to make that order, or the particular variations, or that it had not complied with the process described elsewhere in this clause. I rather assumed that an appeal would be for somebody to look again at the principles going into that decision, not whether the process was followed correctly. This is not the clause described in the Explanatory Notes. It is something very different.
	If it is the Government’s intention to create an appeal mechanism of some sort, this is not it. However, if the Government’s intention, irrespective of what is said in the Explanatory Notes, is to provide a mechanism for challenging the validity of the process, I do not understand why we have this one, given that all those cases would be amenable—as I understand it—to judicial review. It would be helpful if the Minister told us if this clause is meant to reflect what is said in the Explanatory Notes or what it says in the clause heading “Challenging the validity of orders”. If it is the latter, what is the point of having nicely bound Explanatory Notes that do not tell us the Government’s intentions?

Lord Rosser: My Lords—

Lord Greaves: Perhaps I could speak before the noble Lord, and then he could speak last before the Minister. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Faulks and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, for clarifying my thoughts on this. I must admit that my thoughts were muddled after reading this. I think that they are clarified now but perhaps the Minister will muddle them again—I do not know. I ask him one question. If this process is indeed one of judicial review of the process as opposed to a normal appeal on the merits of the case, will the judicial-reviewable process include the guidance as well as what is set out in the Bill?

Lord Rosser: My comments will be much in line with those already expressed. It is worth recalling the very considerable powers given to a local authority with a public spaces protection order. It has the power to impose such an order for a period of up to three years without, apparently, any requirement to secure the approval or agreement of any other individual groups, bodies or organisations, including the courts.
	There are just two conditions that a local authority must satisfy. First is that,
	“activities carried on in a public place … have had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality”,
	or that,
	“it is likely that activities will be carried on in a public place … that … will have such an effect … The second condition is that the effect, or likely effect, of the activities … is, or is likely to be, of a
	persistent or continuing nature … is, or is likely to be, such as to make the activities unreasonable, and … justifies the restrictions imposed by the”,
	public spaces protection order.
	The only check on that local authority power is that:
	“An interested person may apply to the High Court to question the validity of … a public spaces protection order”,
	on the grounds,
	“that the local authority did not have the power to make the order … or to include in particular provisions or requirements imposed by the order”,
	or,
	“that a requirement under this chapter was not complied with in relation to the order or variation”.
	Bearing in mind the potentially significant but apparently unchallenged powers that a local authority will have to make a public spaces protection order, it is important that the Minister places clearly on record how weak or strong are the proposed provisions to challenge the validity of such orders and how, in practice, they are expected to operate.
	What do the Government believe that Clause 62(2) means in practice? That is the clause referring to the grounds on which an application can be made to the High Court, to which I referred a few moments ago. In an early debate this evening, the Minister said that the fact that activities carried on in a public place had to be,
	“of a persistent or continuing nature”,
	and “unreasonable” was adequate protection, but each local authority will interpret those words as it sees fit. How regularly does an activity have to be carried out to be persistent or continuing? Can that issue be taken to the High Court in challenging the validity of an order? On what basis might it be deemed that a local authority did not have the power to make a public spaces protection order or to include particular prohibitions or requirements imposed by the order? Would that include a challenge that the two conditions referred to in Clause 55(1) and (2) had not been met? If so, why does the Bill not set that out clearly in Clause 62(2), or does a local authority not having the power simply mean that the challenge can be only on the basis that the area to which the order relates is not a public place?
	Perhaps the Minister could give some examples of what might be deemed a prohibition or requirement that the local authority had imposed on the order which it would not have the power to impose under the Bill. Clause 62(2) also refers to a challenge on the basis that a requirement under this chapter was not complied with in relation to the order. Does that ground relate purely to process, or would it include other issues? If so, can the Minister give some examples?
	How quickly do the Government think that an application under subsection (2) would be heard in the High Court? If a local authority has made a public spaces protection order preventing use of, let us say, a public footpath in the light of objections from landowners and nearby residents—or, alternatively, a local authority has made a public spaces protection order preventing the use of a large public square in a major city which is regularly used for the purpose of rallies or public
	protest meetings, in the light of opposition from local residents or businesses—the question of how quickly access to the High Court can be made is not unimportant.
	As an individual can apply to the High Court, how much is it likely to cost to make such an application and will the use of professional lawyers be mandatory or optional? Will legal aid be available? If so, to which categories of interested people will it be available? Does the reference to an interested person making an application to the High Court mean that a business or other organisation cannot make an application to question the validity of a public spaces protection order? If that is the case, what is the Government’s argument for taking that stance?
	Clause 62(5) states that,
	“the Court may quash the order … or any of the prohibitions or requirements imposed by the order”.
	Does that include the length of time of up to three years for which the order has been imposed by the local authority?
	The Government say that the Bill is about victims, but people on the wrong end of an unjustified local authority public spaces protection order will also be victims, so what provisions in the Bill will enable support to be provided to such individuals, including support in taking a challenge to the High Court? On the face of it, one might conclude that the proposals for public spaces protection orders are fair and reasonable. If they are applied by reasonable people acting in a reasonable manner, they almost certainly will be. However, the question is: what are the safeguards in the Bill to prevent abuse of this power? What or who is there to stop a local authority from acting unreasonably in making an order in the first place? Is there is reality nothing?

Lord Faulks: Is the answer to the noble Lord’s question not that if an authority acts unlawfully its acts are amenable to judicial review, just as any other administrative acts are?

Lord Rosser: I am waiting to see what answer the Minister gives me. The noble Lord himself raised a particular reference to Clause 62, so perhaps he is also waiting for an answer to his point.
	I ask the question again. Is there in reality nothing, with the only redress being an application to the High Court by an interested party? If the answer is that you go to the court on some other issue of judicial review, it comes back to the point about what this clause is doing in the Bill. If that is the case on the question I have raised about the specific grounds on which the validity of the order can be challenged in the High Court and how restrictive or otherwise those grounds are, I suggest that that is very relevant—as is the speed with which an individual can get a hearing at the High Court, along with the cost of doing so and the support that will be given to them.
	There is obviously some confusion about what Clause 62 means; that is clear from the contributions made by a number of noble Lords. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide detailed answers to these questions and thus resolve any confusion there may be about what this clause is meant to mean, and in what circumstances and on what basis it will be applied.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I thank noble Lords for raising this issue because it gives me a chance to provide some detail and, to the extent that I am not able to answer all the factors, I will certainly write to all noble Lords who have spoken on these amendments.
	Perhaps it would help if I explain briefly how Clause 62 provides a process by which a public spaces protection order can be challenged. The heading is “Challenging the validity of orders” and that is what the clause seeks to achieve. Within six weeks of an order being made or varied, any interested person can appeal to the High Court to challenge its validity. It is only right that those with an interest in the area should be able to do this and, as such, this route is not open to those who do not live in, regularly work in or regularly visit the area.
	A challenge can be made on two grounds. The first is that the local authority did not have the power to make the order. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is quite right to draw the attention of the Committee to Clause 55, which stipulates the power that the order is designed to provide for. For instance, this could be in cases where the person challenging the order believes that the test for making an order had not been met. The second ground is if the requirement in this part of the Bill was not met; for example, if local community representatives were not consulted as required by Clause 55(7)(b).
	The court has the power to quash the order, uphold it or quash any of the individual elements, including its time and duration. The court can decide to suspend the public spaces protection order in full or in part until the proceedings are complete. However, it does not have to do so; an appeal does not necessarily mean that restrictions are lifted. But this appeal mechanism acts as a valuable safeguard to ensure that local authorities do not use the order disproportionately.
	My noble friend Lord Greaves has tabled Amendments 55 and 56, which raise the question of who should be able to challenge the issue or variation of a public spaces protection order.
	I stress that it is important that we strike the right balance between councils being able to protect communities from harm and providing the right opportunities for people affected by it to challenge such action. That is why, as I have explained, we have sought to restrict the ability to challenge an order to those who have a direct interest—namely, those who live in, regularly visit or work in the area. I believe that in doing so we have given the right people an appropriate safeguard. There is, of course, nothing to stop national bodies raising a challenge through a local group or even an individual, but someone directly affected by an order should at least object to it for it to be challenged. Our reforms are all about putting the victim first, and it is only right that they have the ability to shape the local solution.
	I hope I have been able to satisfy my noble friend, although I suspect not, because he strongly believes that national organisations should be involved in this process. That is not the Government’s view.
	I shall seek to answer some of the particular questions that have been raised. The High Court is the appeal route for the three orders being replaced; the designated
	public places order, the gating order and the dog control order all have an appeal to the High Court. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked when the restriction could be challenged when conduct does not justify the proposed restriction—so, in other words, there is improper balance. That is in Clause 55(3)(c). The noble Lord also asked why no one need agree to an order for it to be made. The council will have to consult the police and any community representatives they think appropriate. They may not reach agreement on the order but, none the less, if they were unreasonable in not reaching agreement in that consultation, that, too, would provide grounds for review. The intention is not to close the door on judicial reviews.
	I will reflect on the noble Lord’s point on the whole business of the balance between the High Court application and judicial review—and, if I may, I shall write to him about it, because he raises a lot of detailed questions, particularly on the question of legal aid, and suchlike.

Lord Rosser: I thank the Minister for that. Until he made the comment about writing to me, I was going to ask him whether, if somebody considered a public spaces protection order to be unreasonable in any way at all, the Minister would say that they should pursue it under Clause 62 or do it through other legal channels. I gather that that is one issue that the Minister is going to consider and write on.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I certainly give that commitment. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also asked how long it would take to get an appeal heard. As he will know, that is a matter for the courts having regard to a number of factors, including the urgency of the case. He also asked how quickly a PSPO could be made; each one must be made following the requirements of the Bill, especially the consultation requirement. This will take different times in different circumstances; what is appropriate will include an assessment of the need for immediate and urgent action if this is the case. I have said already that the High Court can suspend a PSPO pending the outcome of the challenge under Clause 62, so I hope that the noble Lord will accept that. There was a lot of detail in his questions, which I think that only correspondence will be able to settle.

Lord Rosser: Does the Minister accept my interpretation of what the Bill says or not? It is an individual who has to take the case there—presumably, they must use professional lawyers and, presumably, there is a cost involved. Presumably, they have to feel sufficiently confident to take a case to the High Court, if it is the case that an individual has to take it and an organisation cannot take it on their behalf.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I have made it clear that this does not pre-empt the judicial review route, if that is considered preferable by the individual.

Lord Rosser: Then I come back to the point to which I know the Minister will respond. Is this the key clause for dealing with the belief that a public spaces protection order is unreasonable or unfair, or is
	judicial review the appropriate channel? The question that has just been raised goes to the heart of whether it is Clause 62 or judicial review, which is obviously not covered in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will clear up what the Government’s intentions are when he writes.

Lord Harris of Haringey: Perhaps the Minister could also clarify what he just said about also having a judicial review. My reading of Clause 62(7) is that judicial reviews are precluded. Perhaps, while the Minister is pondering that point, he could also answer the question of how this procedure is in practice different from the judicial review. Does this have more teeth or fewer teeth?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: This clause is of course specific to the Bill, and so lays down the procedure of the considerations which apply in the Bill. Judicial review is a much broader process through which individuals can challenge legal conduct of the implementation of a PSPO. I have made it quite clear that the intention is not to close the door on judicial reviews, but I will reflect on the points that have been made by the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Harris of Haringey. I will be writing to all those who have participated in the debate.

Lord Faulks: Further to a point that I made a little earlier, which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, also made, of course the Minister is absolutely right: judicial review cannot be ousted by any provision. That is why I am a little perplexed about subsection (7), where it is provided:
	“The validity of a public spaces protection order, or of a variation of a public spaces protection order, may not be challenged in any legal proceedings, either before or after it is made, except under this section”.
	It looks, on the face of it, as though it is precluding challenge. I am sure that there is an explanation, but I look forward to it being included.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I thought that I would be getting my views on this clause clarified. I am even more muddled, having heard this debate, than I was before. That is no fault of those taking part; lots of valid questions have been asked, which will need answering. I assume that my noble friend the Minister will copy any letters he sends to people around the Committee so that we can all see his answers. Is that the case?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I am certainly quite prepared to make my correspondence as broad as anybody would wish. I have certainly noted the people who have taken an interest in this matter and will try to make sure that everybody is included in the correspondence.

Lord Greaves: I am most grateful, as I am sure other noble Lords are. I have two quick points. For all this talk of whether it is the High Court or judicial review, they are both way above the abilities of ordinary people. If I go on a local footpath anywhere in this country and I find that it is blocked and complain to
	the highways authority, and the highways authority does nothing about it, I can go to the court to make the highways authority do something about it. That court is the magistrates’ court. However, if I then find signs up saying that the local authority has just issued a public spaces protection order to stop me walking on it, there is no way on God’s earth that I will go to the High Court, because ordinary folk do not do that kind of thing. There may well be Members of this Committee and your Lordships’ House who spend half their time in the High Court, but most of us do not; and after the one or two occasions on which we have ever been there, we may never want to go back again.
	If there are to be decisions like this, which affect basic, historic rights to walk on paths and land, there needs to be a proper appeals mechanism just as there is under the Highways Act. If a local authority closes a footpath under the Highways Act and you do not like it, you can appeal to the magistrates’ court. That is the sort of level at which ordinary people can function. Are the Government saying that ordinary people are not able to get help and support from organisations that can operate at a higher level, such as the Ramblers or perhaps the CLA, but are on their own? Sorry, but they are individuals, and it clearly states here that it is about an individual, not even a local business, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said.
	I think that there is something wrong and we need to have further discussions about it, but not now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 55 withdrawn.
	Amendment 55A not moved.
	Amendment 56 not moved.
	Clause 62 agreed.
	Clause 63: Offence of failing to comply with order
	Amendment 56ZA
	 Moved by Lord Greaves
	56ZA: Clause 63, page 38, line 4, at end insert—
	“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply if the prohibition or restriction relates to—
	(a) travel along a footpath, bridleway, restricted byway or byway open to all traffic in an appropriate manner in each case;
	(b) presence on a common, village green or town green or on land that is access land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.”

Lord Greaves: My Lords, Clause 63(1) states that:
	“It is an offence for a person without reasonable excuse”.
	The words “without reasonable excuse” are part of the reason for putting these probing amendments down in order to find out what they mean. Subsection (1) continues,
	“(a) to do anything that the person is prohibited from doing by a public spaces protection order, or,
	(b) to fail to comply with a requirement to which the person is subject under a public spaces protection order”.
	Again, my amendments refer to the kinds of access that are specifically enabled by legislation, historic practice and common law; that is, rights of way,
	commons, village greens and town greens. Amendment 56ZA is about those. It states:
	“Subsection (1) does not apply if the prohibition or restriction relates to—
	(a) travel along a footpath, bridleway, restricted byway or byway open to all traffic”,
	or presence on access land. If I am walking along with an Ordnance Survey map in my hand, or if I am a bit more modern and I have a fancy phone or tablet, and I walk on to this land or on to footpaths where access has been prohibited from access by a public spaces protection order, why should I become a criminal for doing things which, on the face of it, I believe to be reasonable? This amendment probes to what extent that would be a criminal offence. The question is, would I be behaving in a reasonable way if I did that? If I met an owner, a resident or somebody else who told me to get off because some sort of spaces order had been made on the land, would I still be breaking the law if I said, “No. I’ve got this Ordnance Survey map which maps the access land and shows the rights of way, and I’m okay”?
	Amendment 56ZB states:
	“A person does not commit an offence unless the local authority has displayed information about the relevant restrictions and requirements on or adjacent to the land that is subject to the public spaces protection notice in such a way that it is reasonable for the person to have seen the notice”.
	The possibility under public spaces protection orders for people to break the law but not know that they are breaking the law—in other words, breaking the order, which is an offence—simply because the local authority or other authorities have not provided adequate information on the site, is very great indeed. These are probing amendments to test what would happen under those circumstances. I beg to move.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I understand that these are probing amendments relating to the circumstances in which someone may commit an offence when a public spaces protection order is breached. I can see the reasoning behind Amendment 56ZA. Clearly, it is hard to see how using a public right of way in an appropriate and responsible manner, or mere presence on common land, a town or village green, or on access land, could constitute an offence. However, in the extreme circumstances where the council, in consultation with the relevant bodies, has decided to place restrictions on access to the land that apply to everyone, there must be a penalty for breach.
	Similarly, Amendment 56ZB seeks to provide that it is not an offence to breach the conditions of a public spaces protection order if the local authority has not publicised it in a certain way. As I have said before, I do not believe it is for primary legislation to state how restrictions will be publicised; not least there may be situations where it is not necessary or appropriate to do so in the entirely sensible way my noble friend suggests. The place for this is in regulations or guidance.
	However, on the more important point of a defence of reasonable excuse, I would like to assure my noble friend that a person commits an offence only if they breach a condition without reasonable excuse. The courts carefully consider whether there is a “reasonable
	excuse” to breach an order if the local authority has not publicised it appropriately. As such, regardless of what is in the legislation, or indeed the guidance, it is in the best interests of the local authority to make sure that people using the public space know what is expected of them; otherwise, it becomes unenforceable. Earlier this evening we discussed unenforceable legislation in connection with a matter affecting this House.
	I hope that, with this reassurance, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, the real problem with this measure is that it criminalises trespass in certain circumstances where people not only think they are not trespassing but have evidence in their hand which shows that they are allowed to be there. This is the potential problem that could arise. I am not sure that the Minister’s answer has tackled that thoroughly and completely. This issue needs further discussion but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 56ZA withdrawn.
	Amendment 56ZB not moved.
	Clause 63 agreed.
	Clause 64: Fixed penalty notices
	Amendments 56ZBA and 56ZBB not moved.
	Clause 64 agreed.
	Amendment 56ZBC
	 Moved by Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
	56ZBC: After Clause 64, insert the following new Clause—
	“Orders made by statutory custodians
	(1) The Secretary of State may by order designate a person as a statutory custodian for the purposes of this section in respect of any land which that person is empowered to regulate under any enactment.
	(2) Where an order is in force under subsection (1), the provisions of this Chapter (other than this section) apply as if the statutory custodian were the local authority for the area comprising the land in respect of which it is designated.
	(3) Subsection (2)—
	(a) does not affect the ability of a local authority to exercise within its area any of the functions conferred by this Chapter, and
	(b) is subject to the following provisions of this section.
	(4) A statutory custodian may not make a public spaces protection order imposing any prohibition or requirement which it would not have been able to impose (in whatever form) by means of a byelaw made under any enactment.
	(5) Before making, varying or discharging a public spaces protection order, or extending the period for which such an order has effect, a statutory custodian must consult (in addition to any other person who must be consulted by virtue of any provision of this Chapter) the local authority for the area that includes the restricted area.
	(6) Where a local authority makes a public spaces protection order—
	(a) any public spaces protection order made by a statutory custodian shall cease to have effect, and
	(b) a statutory custodian may not make a public spaces protection order,
	to the extent that such an order regulates an activity which is regulated by the public spaces protection order made by the local authority.
	(7) In subsection (6) “regulate” means—
	(a) prohibit by virtue of section 55(4)(a), or
	(b) subject to requirements by virtue of section 55(4)(b),
	whether or not for all persons at all times.
	(8) A notice given by a person under section 67(2) does not have effect in relation to the making of any public spaces protection order by that person as a statutory custodian.”

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, the aim of this new clause is to apply the power to make public spaces protection orders to bodies which are responsible for the custody of public open spaces under private Acts. The amendment is prompted by the position of the City of London Corporation. I probably do not need to record for your Lordships the provenance of my association with the City in the other place. In addition to its responsibilities within the City, the corporation acts under a variety of private Acts and related instruments as custodian for a range of well known public open spaces: Hampstead Heath, Burnham Beeches and Epping Forest are prominent examples.
	I was born in Hampstead, where my home address persisted until I was 29, before shifting to Highgate for a further 14 years. I therefore know Hampstead Heath backwards under both the LCC and the GLC, prior to the City of London Corporation inheriting the responsibility for Hampstead Heath. I also confess to your Lordships to have form as the sponsor of City of London Bills involving its open spaces, particularly Epping Forest.
	The problems that arise in the public open spaces for which the City is responsible are no different in kind from those encountered in those which local authorities manage. The case for public spaces protection orders provided for by Chapter 2 of Part 4 of the Bill is therefore the same. The control of dogs is a particular feature of the City’s open spaces around London, but no doubt that feature is shared by many. The Bill recognises this commonality by making the power to make orders generally applicable to public spaces at the suit of the local authority for the area, including those governed by private Acts by agreement with those responsible for them. However, unlike the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, which introduced a similar, more limited, regime to the one that we are considering, and is applicable to the control of dogs, there is no provision in the Bill to enable the custodians of public spaces governed by private Acts to make such orders.
	There are, however, good reasons why the principle applied in the 2005 Act is appropriate for public spaces protection orders. Those responsible for public open spaces under private Acts of Parliament also have responsibility for enforcing the by-laws made under those Acts; the open spaces may cross local authority boundaries—many of those for which the City is responsible do so—and it makes practical sense to have an order covering the open space as a whole rather than a patchwork with different enforcing authorities and the practical evidential problems of demarcation near boundaries; and in relation to the
	open spaces managed by the City, such an order will relieve public expenditure because the cost of custodianship, including any public spaces protection orders, will be met from private funds.
	The proposed new clause seeks essentially to apply the same regime for public spaces protection orders as set out in Chapter 2 of Part 4 of the Bill. The application depends on a designation being made by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) of the new clause. The new clause does not affect the entitlement of the local authority for the area in which the open space is located to make its own public spaces protection order. If the local authority does so, any order made by the custodian of the open space ceases to have effect under subsection (6). In other words, the local authority has precedence if it wishes to regulate the open space itself, although, as I have said, that eventuality would not seem to be a particularly attractive practical option. Any custodian of a public space—“statutory custodian” in the terminology of the proposed new clause—wishing to make a public spaces protection order must undertake the same consultation procedure as is applied generally by the Bill to others seeking to make an order. In addition, subsection (5) requires the custodian to consult the local authority for the area in which the open space is located.
	I hope that Lordships feel that this new clause is a practical and realistic way to address open spaces governed under statute by bodies other than local authorities. I remark in the presence of the government Whip on the Front Bench that three years of my life were partly spent watching my eldest son with an Oxford blue running against Cambridge cross-country over Wimbledon Common—in passing, he was always a member of the winning team. I therefore also hope that the Minister will feel able to respond positively. I beg to move.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his amendment, and not least for his closing remarks. He raises an important and interesting issue. The City of London Corporation, as all noble Lords would agree, does a fantastic job managing a number of important spaces through both primary legislation and the effective use of by-laws. I also know that in discussions officials have held meaningful and constructive conversations with representatives from the City of London Corporation over the past few months to discuss the issue, and I note and appreciate the safeguards that have been built into the suggested amendment. I would like to consider the matter further ahead of Report, read through my noble friend’s contributions and the representations which have been made by the City of London, and consider any wider implications of this proposed change. In the mean time, given the strong case made by my noble friend and what I hope he feels is my positive response, I hope he will be minded to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I am happy to do as my noble friend suggests. Should he wish to have further contact either with me or with the City of London Corporation, I hope that he will not
	hesitate to do so. I am very grateful to him for the spirit of his response, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 56ZBC withdrawn.
	Clauses 65 and 66 agreed.
	Clause 67: Interpretation of Chapter 2
	Amendment 56ZC not moved.
	Amendment 56ZD had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Debate on whether Clause 67 should stand part of the Bill.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, I have two brief questions for the Minister on interpretation. One is an issue that I raised with him previously. He will know that the naturists have written to a number of noble Lords about their concern that the definition of “public place” in the Bill is drawn very widely and that it will unnecessarily restrain—perhaps “contain” would be a better word—their activities. It would be helpful to have an explanation of that. I raised it previously but did not get an answer. However, if there is an answer for them on that, that would be helpful.
	Unitary authorities are not referred to under the interpretation of “local authority”. Do I take it that a county council, when there is no district council, includes a unitary authority, even though the unitary may not be the county council? I can see no other way in which a unitary authority would be referred to in the legislation.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Perhaps I may make a very brief intervention. Clause 67(2) seems to contain a drafting mistake because the subsection opens with the words “This section”, but it is in fact a reference to paragraph (b) immediately before it in subsection (1), referring to “public place”. I am not seeking to press this in any way but some attention might be drawn to it between now and Report to make sure that, if I am right, it is corrected.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, Clause 67 provides interpretations of the terms used in this chapter, and I shall briefly explain the definitions and the reasoning behind the key terms.
	First, perhaps I may pick up on the question of “public place”, which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has just raised. This is defined as,
	“any place to which the public or any section of the public has access, on payment or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission”.
	It is the same definition as is used for the current designated public place order. It does not apply where a private Act gives a person or body a power in relation to a certain area of land. However, if that person or body gives written notice to the local authority, the local authority can make a public spaces protection order in relation to that area of land.
	Unitary authorities fall within the definition of “local authority” as currently drafted in the Bill. I am mindful that we have looked at the various definitions of local authorities, including parish councils and
	county councils, and we are looking at all these issues in more general terms. I hear what the noble Baroness says about the specific issue of unitary authorities but they fall within the definition of “local authority”.
	There are a few other definitions which have not been raised in this debate, but I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness on the two specific issues that she mentioned and that she will be minded not to press her opposition to the clause standing part. I thank my noble friend Lord Brooke for pointing out the drafting issue and we will certainly review it in advance of Report.
	Clause 67 agreed.
	Clause 68 agreed.
	Clause 69: Power to issue closure notices
	Amendments 56ZDA and 56ZDB not moved.
	Amendment 56ZE
	 Moved by Baroness Hamwee
	56ZE: Clause 69, page 41, line 21, at end insert “and is proportionate”

Baroness Hamwee: This amendment takes us to the clauses on closure notices. My amendments are about closure notices, temporary notices and extensions to closure notices. They insert a reference to proportionality at every point. I anticipate that the Government will say that we need not worry because the mechanism that has been designed involves a local authority or a senior police officer, and they would not apply for a closure notice and the court would not grant a notice unless it was proportionate.
	Closing premises is a significant step. Closure has to be necessary but, as I read the provisions, the behaviour itself need not be serious enough to justify an order. For instance, one might want to close premises to preclude offensive behaviour—that is one of the types of behaviour in question—but what if the offensiveness is not of such an extreme to justify closure? There are other types of behaviour that could lead to closure notices being applied for and granted—for instance, criminal behaviour, which surely could be dealt with through other mechanisms.
	I anticipate that we may be told that this is a matter for guidance, but closing premises is a serious matter and the legislation must be very clear so that we do not have to rely on guidance. Indeed, because it is a serious matter, one ought to have in mind that in any notice applied for or decision made the process should allow for challenge and possibly even a subsequent claim. Therefore proportionality ought to be integral to the power. I beg to move.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, again, the reason for moving a clause stand part debate is that it is a more satisfactory way of addressing a number of different questions than tabling lots of individual amendments. Noble Lords will recall that I raised this matter briefly under the issue of corporate ASBOs,
	which is one of the things that strikes me about closure notices. We support the need to close premises, particularly if they are likely to be a nuisance to members of the public or there could be disorder, but this goes straight to closure. The point of the corporate ASBO proposal that I put forward in our previous sitting was that prevention would be better than cure, and it would be good to have a stage prior to closure to try to get organisations, companies or premises facing disorder to get their act together and prevent a nuisance taking place.
	I have a few questions to raise with the Minister. Is it possible to have some further clarification on what the “reasonable grounds” would be? We do not want any confusion over the slightly vague wording. I know that there are examples in other legislation of reasonable grounds, but it would be helpful to have more explanation of what the Government consider to be reasonable grounds here. Another issue concerns the consultation in subsection (7). As the Bill stands, a police officer or a local authority can issue closure proceedings but they do not have to consult each other on this. There is no requirement for the police to talk to the local authority or for the local authority to talk to the police. In Committee in the other place, Damian Green said that he thought the police and local authorities would probably consult each other before issuing orders. It does not seem a very satisfactory way to legislate to say that they probably will. If it is appropriate that they do so, it should be formalised in the legislation. The other question is: who should they consult? The way in which the clause is drafted at present, a police officer or local authority can consult who they think appropriate, but that might not be each other. I cannot think of anyone more appropriate to consult than the police and the local authority.
	It would also be helpful to have the Government’s view on whether they think it would be appropriate to publish the names of those who have been consulted. Those who have been aggrieved by a closure perhaps would understand the reasons more easily and be less likely to appeal or try to stop the proposal if they understood who had been consulted and the process was more transparent. If there had been widespread consultation in an area, it would be understood that there was a serious problem, but they might be more aggrieved if they found that only one or perhaps two organisations had been consulted. That might in turn give grounds for challenges to the closure. Subsection (7) states:
	“Before issuing a closure notice the police officer or local authority must ensure that any body or individual the officer or authority thinks appropriate has been consulted”.
	Could they consider it appropriate not to consult anybody at all, and would that be grounds for a challenge?
	There are two issues: one, whether it is appropriate and whether there is enough information about who should be consulted; and two, if it is not necessary to consult anybody, or to consult very few people—or the most appropriate or useful people to consult—would that give reasons for the decision to be overturned or challenged? I hope that the Minister can address these points, which would be helpful.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, we know that in another place the Opposition stated their support for closure notices. I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, means when she says that she wants to clarify some of the detail in this, and I agree that a clause stand part debate is a good method to use. Clause 69 gives the police and local authorities a simple and easy-to-use power to close temporary premises that are the focus of public nuisance or disorder. There are a number of existing powers that could be used to close such premises, but they are similar.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: Did the noble Lord say, “to close temporary premises”? I am slightly confused by what he means by temporary premises.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: “Temporarily”, I said. I am sorry. I might have said “temporary” but I meant to say “temporarily”. It may be me misspeaking or the noble Baroness mishearing but: “temporarily premises that are the focus of public nuisance or disorder”.
	A number of existing powers could be used to close such premises but they are similar and overlap in a number of ways. We are consolidating these existing powers into a single scheme applicable to all premises associated with anti-social behaviour. These powers are flexible and can apply to private and residential premises, and to business premises whether licensed or unlicensed. The notice allows for immediate action while the longer-term order is put in place if it is required. This will give professionals a simple and flexible means to protect the public, making it easier to act preventively.
	However, noble Lords will agree that such a power requires safeguards. Of course, local agencies already work informally with individuals and businesses to mitigate the risks of crime and anti-social behaviour before resorting to formal powers. This will continue to be the case. Most businesses want to protect their customers and premises. Where there is information that premises may be the location for or contribute to crime and anti-social behaviour, they can be invited to take action to tackle it, and many do.
	Clauses 69 and 70 specify a minimum rank for police officers authorising the issue of a closure notice for up to 24 hours, with a higher authority needed for both the police and local authority for the extension of the notice up to a maximum of 48 hours. The provisions also include requirements about notification and consultation, and of course only the courts can require closures of premises for longer than 48 hours.
	The noble Baroness has not tabled amendments but I can use some of the information that she was seeking. The court has to be satisfied that there is likely to be serious nuisance or disorderly, offensive or criminal behaviour. The second element is that it is necessary to prevent the nuisance or disorder from continuing, recurring or occurring. In practice, we expect that in most cases informal measures would be the right starting point. The draft guidance directs professionals towards informal measures in the first instance, where appropriate. Indeed, if alternatives to closure are available but have not been considered, it is difficult to see, save in exceptional cases, how it could be argued that the
	closure notice is necessary. Professionals, as public authorities, would have to exercise their powers proportionately or risk an adverse judicial review.
	Additionally, in applying the test, a court, the police or a local authority must have regard to an individual’s human rights—for example, Article 8 rights. As I said when similar issues were raised in respect of earlier parts of the Bill, such qualified rights can be infringed only where to do so is necessary and proportionate in the pursuit of a legitimate aim.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked me what the reasonable grounds are. It is a matter of evidence, usually comprising of witness statements and statements of victims and police officers, in particular. CCTV evidence, for example, can also be brought into play when deciding whether there is a justification for the grounds. The term is commonly used in legislation and I hope that noble Lords will accept that.
	The noble Baroness also asked who has been consulted. Given that the notice is affixed to the premises it would not be appropriate to name all the individuals who had been consulted. Guidance highlights the importance of partnership working and it is advised that the police and local authority keep a record of who has been consulted.
	The noble Baroness also asked why we do not require the police and local authority to make information about the closure of the premises more publicly available, such as in a paper or some other way. The closure powers are flexible in that they can be used for residential, business, licensed and non-licensed premises. There may be circumstances where a short-term closure of the premises is needed to resolve a problem, such as closing a residential premises for 24 hours to prevent a Facebook party. That would not be of interest to the wider public in that area, and requiring the police or local authority to make a public announcement of all closures would add an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. That is why we require the police and local authority to consult anyone they think appropriate as well as the owner and occupier of the premises. Clause 72 requires them, where possible, to fix a copy of the notice to the premises.
	I hope that I have been able to answer the questions that the noble Baronesses have posed. I hope my noble friend will accept my explanations and agree to withdraw her amendment and that noble Lords will support the provisions in this part of the Bill.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I did not catch what sort of party was mentioned.

Noble Lords: Facebook.

Baroness Hamwee: I was going to say I will catch up with that when I read Hansard. I wonder whether, rather than starting with my amendment, I should have moved one in the group in the name of my noble friend Lord Greaves. I am grateful to the Minister for responding to my noble friend’s amendments that were not moved and not mine. Clearly, the answers will deserve, and require, some reading.
	One comment I will make is that of course the right of judicial review must remain and human rights must
	apply. However, I do not think that having either of those available means that we should allow legislation which is insufficiently clear or detailed to go ahead without questioning it. At the same time, the Government are trying to reduce the use of judicial review, so the argument that that remedy is still available is not one which particularly appeals to me. However, I imagine
	that my talking any longer will not appeal to other Members of the Committee, so I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
	Amendment 56ZE withdrawn.
	House resumed.

House adjourned at 10.12 pm.